All Global Research articles 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 grievous as was the blow, as terrible as is the suffering, as overwhelming and demoralizing as has been the ensuing chaos, and as discouraging as has been the spread of falsehoods, and the seduction of the educated, it is no surprise to the historian that a mighty nation like the United States could rapidly decline into moral depravity.

It is no mystery to the scholars of Babylon and Rome, of Byzantium and Athens, that great governments are brought to their knees, not by an external enemy, but rather by the substitution of superficial rituals for moral action, by a spiritual blindness that strikes down the best and the brightest.

This moral virus has infected the minds of those who should have known better, and the door was left ajar for the crafty and the cunning to surreptitiously sneak in and slip a collar around the eagle’s neck, rendering justice a pet for their idle amusement.

We have no time now for laments, standing here on the battlefield. The cruel powers have unleashed their dogs of war and they are ripping our institutions to shreds, tearing the living heart out of our government and our schools, and leaving behind our values and beliefs as rotted carcasses for the jackals to feed upon. These stealthy forces keep shifting their forms to confuse us, now conservative, now progressive, now black, now white.

What we know with certainty is that the current lull in the battle is the bait they have laid out for us. They are planning a final assault, as we stand here, dazed and confused. They want us to be absorbed in our selfish needs, stewed in the narcissism of the smartphone, lost in the cult of the self, and incapable of organizing our thoughts, or of mustering bravery, or of rising to the occasion.

Source: Emanuel Pastreich

 

Their weapons are different. Rather than a tank, they use a vaccine syringe for their first melee. They use AI and commercial media to reprogram our brains, rendering us docile beasts that chase after food, pornography and glittering images. We did not even notice how they made us dependent on them for food, for energy, for information, and now even for our very identity.

Not a single column still stands in the temple of government that our founding fathers erected.

The beasts have carved the executive branch up into private fiefdoms, and leased them out to foreign banks. These days, those involved in governance are patted on the head and rewarded for tearing apart the edifice, for doing the bidding of the hidden masters.

The members of the Congress, regardless of their color or flavor, thrust their snouts deep in the public trough, where they devour the slop shoveled their way by the high priests of Mammon.

There are only two parties: the pimps and the whores.

The gangrene flowing through the veins of the judiciary is foul. It corrupts everything it touches, rendering judges and prosecutors unfeeling, incapable of, and unwilling to, uphold the Constitution, or to do anything that might displease their true masters.

Newspapers, magazines, universities and research institutes, corporations and foundations, are spigots that spew forth lies.

An evil spirit has possessed the public sector, rendering it a monstrosity. It slouches towards your neighborhood with a syringe in hand.

Declaration of an Acting Government for The United States of America

In light of the collapse of all branches of the Federal government, and the slip of civil society into the dark abyss of decadence and narcissism, we citizens declare that an Acting Government of the United States of America is established hereby that will serve as a midwife in the painful, but promising, rebirth of this nation.

The words of this declaration will limn the direction forward for our nation and suggest the contours of our future.

The acting government of the United States will distinguish itself from the wreckage now occupied by jackals and hyenas, by its strict adherence to our sacred Constitution and to the spirit of the law.

The acting government will administer as much of the United States as it can, granted the tremendous challenges that we face.

The roots of our government are planted firmly in hearts of patriots, of citizens committed to liberty, justice and freedom. The acting government will lay the foundations for an accountable government capable of addressing common concerns about the economy, society and security, hand in hand with those patriots.

The United States has a noble tradition of democratic governance. The inspiration for our nation, however, must be traced back to the American Revolution of 1776, and to the revolution against slavery of 1860. Our political philosophy is revolutionary, and this is a moment when that tradition must be revived.

The Declaration of Independence was the first step, a break with the British Empire. This declaration of independence is a break with the insidious empire of finance and speculation run by billionaires and their servants.

We hereby declare our independence from that empire of corruption and pillage, that empire of foreign wars and manipulative media, that empire of processed foods and needless medications forced on us for profit.

Our founding fathers declared,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

We do not need any more media-savvy swiveling between the fraudulent flavors of “progressive” and “conservative,” the Pepsi and Coke of debased politics.

Before we recognize anyone as president, we must first take these six actions:

1) We will list the billionaires, investment banks, private equity funds and the other parasitic financial institutions that have taken control of our nation’s government and detail how they govern us illegally.

We will make all information public regarding their criminal takeover, and their criminal administration, of our country. We will bring criminal charges against the leaders, and seize their assets, regardless of how many politicians they own, or how many billions of dollars they claim to possess.

2) We will take control of the economy, starting with money and finance (especially the Federal Reserve), and create an economy of the people, by the people and for the people.

The speculative economy will end and all fiscal policy will be drafted in close coordination with citizens using scientific data concerning the true short-term and long-term challenges facing our nation. For-profit organizations will play no role in the formulation of economic policy, nor will foreign economic concerns. Corporations whose stock is owned by foreign interests, that have their headquarters outside of the United States, will not be considered American.

3) We will establish true journalism, starting with journalism produced by networks of patriotic citizens, that is dedicated to the pursuit of truth, and does not shy away from taboo subjects. This journalism will have no corporate sponsors and will be accompanied by social media networks and search engines that are run as regional and national cooperatives responsible to the people, that have pursuit of truth, not profit, as their paramount goal.

4) We will establish an international committee of ethical citizens to oversee an investigation of the criminal actions by those pretending to be the United States government for the last twenty years. Base on the findings of those public investigations, we will make proposals for a revolutionary restructuring of the government so as to make the citizen again sovereign.

Only then will we be able to hold transparent and accountable elections for the President and the Congress that allow the citizens to vote on the basis of accurate information, elections from which corporate money and private wealth will be banned.

Criminal syndicates like the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, not described in the Constitution, will play no role in these open and fair elections.

5) We will set down national security priorities related to the threats facing our citizens. The process of assessing those security concerns will be immune from the lobbying of weapons manufactures and investment banks. We will consider crucial issues such as the collapse of biodiversity, the destruction of our climate, the concentration of wealth and the misuse of technology to destroy the minds of our citizens. We will also stop the use of automation and communications technology by corporations to destroy our livelihoods. We see the war of the rich against the citizens of the Earth as the primary security threat of our age.

6) We will reform the United Nations so that it will become a space for true “Earth” governance that takes an internationalist perspective, and is not a tool for globalism. We will banish from the United Nations the money chargers and the plutocracy who have shredded the United Nations Charter and made its employees into their lapdogs.

The demands are simple, but achieving them will require vision, inspiration, tenacity and sacrifice. The rebuilding of the United States, in accord with its sacred Constitution, will be both a national and an international project.

We call out to all Americans, to all patriots who can hear our voices, and especially to those who were lucky enough to receive outstanding educations, privileged enough to obtain specialized training in the sciences, in international relations, in economics and in medicine. It must be you! Lawyers, doctors, professors, technicians, government officials, corporate executives and business owners! This is your moment of truth.

This is the moment when you must choose to stand with the downtrodden, choose to help citizens, who have not been so fortunate as you have, to distinguish truth from falsehood.

Those who possess extreme riches are not your friends. They care no more for you than they do for the homeless.

We declare today that in our streets, in our neighborhoods, in our states and in our nation, the United States of America, the super-rich and their minions shall have no dominion. The government titles or institutional trappings that they have stolen, or bought, grant them no authority over us.

If truth slips from our grasp, the powerful can easily twist our sentiments. The evil that they stir up shifts patterns, so as to blend into any scene, like a moth, like a chameleon.

Our acting government will adhere to the constitution, to the sacred truth and to our moral indignation. We know no other masters.

*

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.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.


I Shall Fear No Evil

Why we need a truly independent candidate for president

Author: Emanuel Pastreich

Paperback ISBN: 9781649994509

Pages: 162

Click here to order.

.

.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Declaration of The Establishment of a Provisional Government for the United States of America
  • 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 European database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, which also tracks reports of injuries and deaths following the experimental COVID-19 “vaccines.”

Here is what EudraVigilance states about their database:

This website was launched by the European Medicines Agency in 2012 to provide public access to reports of suspected side effects (also known as suspected adverse drug reactions). These reports are submitted electronically to EudraVigilance by national medicines regulatory authorities and by pharmaceutical companies that hold marketing authorisations (licences) for the medicines.

EudraVigilance is a system designed for collecting reports of suspected side effects. These reports are used for evaluating the benefits and risks of medicines during their development and monitoring their safety following their authorisation in the European Economic Area (EEA). EudraVigilance has been in use since December 2001.

This website was launched to comply with the EudraVigilance Access Policy, which was developed to improve public health by supporting the monitoring of the safety of medicines and to increase transparency for stakeholders, including the general public.

The Management Board of the European Medicines Agency first approved the EudraVigilance Access Policy in December 2010. A revision was adopted by the Board in December 2015 based on the 2010 pharmacovigilance legislation. The policy aims to provide stakeholders such as national medicines regulatory authorities in the EEA, the European Commission, healthcare professionals, patients and consumers, as well as the pharmaceutical industry and research organisations, with access to reports on suspected side effects.

Transparency is a key guiding principle of the Agency, and is pivotal to building trust and confidence in the regulatory process. By increasing transparency, the Agency is better able to address the growing need among stakeholders, including the general public, for access to information. (Source.)

Their report through May 22, 2021 lists 12,184 deaths and 1,196,190 injuries following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:

 

From the total of injuries recorded, there are 604,744 serious injuries which equals over 50%.

Seriousness provides information on the suspected undesirable effect; it can be classified as ‘serious’ if it corresponds to a medical occurrence that results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation, results in another medically important condition, or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect.”

Health Impact News subscriber in Europe ran the reports for each of the four COVID-19 shots we are including here. This subscriber has volunteered to do this, and it is a lot of work to tabulate each reaction with injuries and fatalities, since there is no place on the EudraVigilance system we have found that tabulates all the results.

Since we have started publishing this, others from Europe have also calculated the numbers and confirmed the totals.[1]

Here is the summary data through May 22, 2021.

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccineTozinameran (code BNT162b2,Comirnaty) from BioNTechPfizer: 5,961 deathand 452,779 injuries to 22/05/2021

  • 13,531   Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 59 deaths
  • 9,828     Cardiac disorders incl. 735 deaths
  • 71           Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 4 deaths
  • 5,468     Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 183        Endocrine disorders
  • 6,266     Eye disorders incl. 14 deaths
  • 41,214   Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 216 deaths
  • 128,031 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 1,909 deaths
  • 327        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 27 deaths
  • 4,802     Immune system disorders incl. 31 deaths
  • 13,948   Infections and infestations incl. 648 deaths
  • 4,821     Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 81 deaths
  • 10,374   Investigations incl. 221 deaths
  • 3,354     Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 120 deaths
  • 65,326   Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 71 deaths
  • 250        Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 15 deaths
  • 81,748   Nervous system disorders incl. 616 deaths
  • 279        Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 7 deaths
  • 88           Product issues
  • 7,978     Psychiatric disorders incl. 94 deaths
  • 1,342     Renal and urinary disorders incl. 93 deaths
  • 1,570     Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 18,597   Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 697 deaths
  • 21,101   Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 53 deaths
  • 663        Social circumstances incl. 9 deaths
  • 160        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 10 deaths
  • 11,459   Vascular disorders incl. 225 deaths

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273(CX-024414) from Moderna: 3,365 deathand 72,596 injuries to 22/05/2021

  • 1,335     Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 22 deaths
  • 2,045     Cardiac disorders incl. 370 deaths
  • 12           Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 718        Ear and labyrinth disorders
  • 37           Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death
  • 997        Eye disorders incl. 4 deaths
  • 6,305     Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 108 deaths
  • 20,774   General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 1,480 deaths
  • 129        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 8 deaths
  • 691        Immune system disorders incl. 4 deaths
  • 2,392     Infections and infestations incl. 183 deaths
  • 1,292     Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 63 deaths
  • 1,743     Investigations incl. 77 deaths
  • 816        Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 64 deaths
  • 9,149     Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 62 deaths
  • 77           Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 11 deaths
  • 12,314   Nervous system disorders incl. 339 deaths
  • 83           Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions
  • 11           Product issues
  • 1,375     Psychiatric disorders incl. 51 deaths
  • 468        Renal and urinary disorders incl. 40 deaths
  • 175        Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 1 death
  • 3,513     Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 306 deaths
  • 3,726     Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 23 deaths
  • 259        Social circumstances incl. 9 deaths
  • 235        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 26 deaths
  • 1,925     Vascular disorders

Total reactions for the experimental vaccine AZD1222/VAXZEVRIA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/ AstraZeneca2,489 deathand 655,534 injuries to 22/05/2021

  • 7,200     Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 100 deaths
  • 9,748     Cardiac disorders incl. 311 deaths
  • 103        Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 6,740     Ear and labyrinth disorders
  • 217        Endocrine disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 10,591   Eye disorders incl. 8 deaths
  • 69,826   Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 116 deaths
  • 178,037 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 685 deaths
  • 396        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 20 deaths
  • 2,409     Immune system disorders incl. 9 deaths
  • 13,832   Infections and infestations incl. 163 deaths
  • 5,870     Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 46 deaths
  • 13,474   Investigations incl. 50 deaths
  • 8,405     Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 35 deaths
  • 104,075 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 25 deaths
  • 222        Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 6 deaths
  • 141,437 Nervous system disorders incl. 388 deaths
  • 156        Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 3 deaths
  • 76           Product issues
  • 12,272   Psychiatric disorders incl. 21 deaths
  • 2,264     Renal and urinary disorders incl. 20 deaths
  • 3,327     Reproductive system and breast disorders
  • 21,237   Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 278 deaths
  • 29,750   Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 14 deaths
  • 582        Social circumstances incl. 4 deaths
  • 498        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 15 deaths
  • 12,790   Vascular disorders incl. 168 deaths

Total reactions for the experimental COVID-19 vaccine JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S) from Johnson & Johnson369 deaths and 15,281 injuries to 22/05/2021

  • 145        Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 10 deaths
  • 264        Cardiac disorders incl. 34 deaths
  • 8             Congenital, familial and genetic disorders
  • 77           Ear and labyrinth disorders
  • 5             Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death
  • 191        Eye disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 1,302     Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 11 deaths
  • 3,619     General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 97 deaths
  • 38           Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 51           Immune system disorders
  • 245        Infections and infestations incl. 8 deaths
  • 209        Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 6 deaths
  • 1,134     Investigations incl. 23 deaths
  • 104        Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 10 deaths
  • 2,368     Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 12 deaths
  • 12           Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
  • 3,051     Nervous system disorders incl. 48 death
  • 7             Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions
  • 8             Product issues
  • 181        Psychiatric disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 69           Renal and urinary disorders incl. 4 deaths
  • 62           Reproductive system and breast disorders
  • 637        Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 29 deaths
  • 324        Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 1 death
  • 39           Social circumstances incl. 2 deaths
  • 214        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 20 deaths
  • 917        Vascular disorders incl. 46 deaths

*

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] These totals are estimates based on reports submitted to EudraVigilance. Totals may be much higher based on percentage of adverse reactions that are reported. Some of these reports may also be reported to the individual country’s adverse reaction databases, such as the U.S. VAERS database, and the UK Yellow Card system. The fatalities are grouped by symptoms, and some fatalities may have resulted from multiple symptoms.

Featured image is from Health Impact News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on India: Vaccine Drive in Uttar Pradesh Goes Awry, Villagers Jump into River to Evade Jab

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Israeli forces and settlers stormed Al-Aqsa Mosque for the third day in a row on Tuesday morning, as arrests of Palestinian activists took place across the occupied West Bank.

According to Palestinian sources in occupied East Jerusalem, Israeli settlers stormed the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque, with the protection of Israeli police.

Israeli forces guards were filmed harassing teenage boys in the neighbourhood of Silwan, apparently carrying out random ID checks.

Silwan is a neighbourhood south of Al-Aqsa Mosque and is one of the East Jerusalem suburbs that are at risk of the displacement of Palestinian residents.

In Hebron, settlers attacked the houses of two separate families and uprooted 35 olive trees and a yield of summer crops, according to local reports.

Israeli forces also arrested Palestinian resident of Hebron, Asaid Zuhair Eskafi, 21, after they raided the Khalat Hadour area and searched his family’s home.

They also arrested Yasser Badersawi, an alleged Hamas leader in Nablus, after raiding his home.

This comes hours after a 23-year-old Palestinian refugee was shot and left for dead by undercover Israeli agents in Al-Bireh.

Plain-clothed Israeli forces, known as Mista’arvim, snuck into the Umm Al Sharayet neighbourhood, where they shot and killed a man identified as Ahmad Jamil Fahd.

Director of the Palestine Medical Complex, Ahmad Al-Bitawi, told Voice of Palestine radio that Fahd was rushed to a medical facility but died.

He was a resident of Am’ari refugee camp, east of Ramallah city.

Weeks of escalated violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank erupted following the Israeli decision to restrict movement at Al-Aqsa Mosque during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and settler attacks on the holy site.

Tensions further escalated following the forced dispossession of Palestinian families from their homes in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah and the 11-day Israeli bombardment of the besieged Gaza Strip, which killed some 250 Palestinians, including 66 children, and wounded over 1,910 others.

Health authorities in the West Bank also confirmed 31 were killed in the occupied region, totalling 279 across all Palestinian territories.

*

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 Andrew Shiva / Wikimedia Commons

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As those individuals aware of it will have observed, presumably with deep regret, the latest ‘International Day for Biological Diversity’ passed on 22 May with the bulk of the human population continuing to act in ways that destroy Earth’s biosphere at an ever-accelerating rate.

Unaware that many authors continue to report the ongoing destruction of Earth’s biodiversity, which is under siege on a range of fronts by unchecked human destruction of Earth’s biosphere as well as particular assaults on Earth’s living creatures, responses to this ‘hidden’ path to human extinction continue to waver between non-existent and token.

Consequently, in such circumstances, the destruction of biodiversity might yet become the means by which Homo sapiens is consigned to the fossil record ‘beating’ nuclear war, the climate catastrophe and electromagnetic radiation as the fundamental driver of extinction.

Of course, these drivers are intimately related. Ongoing preparations for nuclear war (requiring the extraction of vast resources from the biosphere), the accelerating climate catastrophe and the ever-expanding electromagnetic contamination of the biosphere are all heavily implicated in driving the destruction of life on Earth and seriously addressing these issues is something only discussed in narrow, genuinely aware circles while official ‘concern’ and that of the human population generally continue to exhibit negligible engagement, perhaps ‘tut-tutting’ the latest news in the corporate media of the extinction of an iconic species. See ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls: A Report on the State of Planet Earth at Year’s End 2020’.

But given that 150-200 species of life on Earth (plants, birds, animals, fish, amphibians, insects, reptiles and microbes) become extinct daily, as noted in 2010 by Ahmed Djoghlaf, the secretary-general of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity who stated that ‘We are losing biodiversity at an unprecedented rate’, and with many biologists having noted that the species extinction rate is nearly 1,000 times the ‘natural’ or ‘background’ rate and ‘is greater than anything the world has experienced since the vanishing of the dinosaurs nearly 65m years ago’ – see ‘Protect nature for world economic security, warns UN biodiversity chief’ – only a delusional individual would argue that this issue is drawing the attention and profound action that is needed to halt this existential crisis.

And given that, back in 2010, the UN was arguing that the ‘economic case for global action to stop the destruction of the natural world is even more powerful than the argument for tackling climate change’ – see ‘UN says case for saving species “more powerful than climate change”’ – there is obviously no doubt that, officially and otherwise, the destruction of biodiversity has been neglected compared to the (admittedly also inadequate) attention given to the climate catastrophe.

So Homo sapiens moves quickly and efficiently to its own extinction, an inevitable consequence of the destruction of the web of life.

An important aspect of the destruction of biodiversity is what precedes the extinction of a species.

In their report compiled in 2017, Professors Gerardo Ceballos, Paul R. Ehrlich & Rodolfo Dirzo recorded that Earth continues to experience ‘a huge episode of population declines and extirpations, which will have negative cascading consequences on ecosystem functioning and services vital to sustaining civilization. We describe this as a “biological annihilation” to highlight the current magnitude of Earth’s ongoing sixth major extinction event.’ Moreover, local population extinctions ‘are orders of magnitude more frequent than species extinctions. Population extinctions, however, are a prelude to species extinctions, so Earth’s sixth mass extinction episode has proceeded further than most assume.’ See ‘Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines’ and ‘Our Vanishing World: Wildlife’.

But, tragically, many additional species are now trapped in a feedback loop which will inevitably precipitate their extinction as well because of the way in which ‘co-extinctions’, ‘localized extinctions’ and ‘extinction cascades’ work once initiated and as has already occurred in almost all ecosystem contexts. See the (so far) six-part series ‘Our Vanishing World’. Have you seen a flock of birds of any size recently? A butterfly?

Why is this Happening?

The accelerating destruction of Earth’s biosphere is driven by one fundamental cause. Over-consumption by humans in industrialized countries. With nearly a billion people living in poverty and about 500 million indigenous peoples living or attempting to live subsistence lifestyles around the world, it is those populations in industrialized countries who are determined to consume more than they actually need and generally live unaware of their ecological impact who are destroying Earth’s biosphere.

Because whether consuming water, energy for household use, fossil fuels for vehicle or airline travel, paper, plastic, metals or meat, only a rare human is keeping track of, and consciously minimizing use of, these ‘end product’ resources which are extracted directly from, or manufactured with resources extracted from, Earth’s biosphere, with a byproduct of this production being a massive amount of waste material, much of it not able to be disposed of in any way that is remotely ecologically benign.

And because the extraction of resources from the biosphere to satisfy consumer demand fundamentally depends on state or private corporations making a profit from the extraction, corporations will exploit anywhere with negligible concern for the local environments destroyed.

To highlight the cost of our endlessly-expanding consumption, one only has to consider a few of the near ‘endless’ list of biosphere assaults adversely impacting the Earth and the species dependent on impacted ecosystems.

Did you know about the planned oil drilling in the staggeringly beautiful and, until now, pristine Okavango Delta in south-west Africa, and what this might mean for the region’s 18,000 elephants and other wildlife (not to mention the human population)? See ‘A Big Oil project in Africa threatens fragile Okavango region’.

Did you know about the ‘massive volumes of fracking waste’ being illegally dumped at Vaca Muerta in northern Patagonia in Argentina? Good for the biosphere and local wildlife do you think? See ‘Argentina’s Illegal Oil and Gas Waste Dumps Show “Dark Side” of Vaca Muerta Drilling, Says Criminal Complaint’.

And while there is a huge number of mines around the world inflicting massive damage on their immediate location – see ‘Environmental Nightmares Created by Open Pit Mines’ – mining is just one way to destroy the biosphere.

Rainforest destruction is another key driver of biosphere degradation in all parts of the world where rainforests are located, notably including the Amazon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia and West Papua, and the range of assaults is breathtaking with logging, burning, land clearance to create cattle farms, palm oil and soybean plantations, dam building as well as mining and oil drilling just among the most damaging causes. See ‘Our Vanishing World: Rainforests’.

But, as hinted at above, the emission of ‘greenhouse gases’, notably carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide is destroying the delicate composition of Earth’s atmosphere, to the detriment of the biosphere generally and with catastrophic implications for life on Earth. Despite largely successful efforts by the elite-controlled IPCC to delude people into believing that the global mean temperature has increased by only 1°C, in fact, since the pre-industrial era (prior to 1750) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have already caused the global temperature to rise by more than 2°C above this baseline (in February 2020). This occurred despite the Paris climate agreement in 2015 when politicians pledged to hold the global temperature rise to well below 2°C above the pre-industrial level and pledged to try to limit the temperature rise to 1.5°C above this level. See ‘2°C crossed’ and ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’.

And electromagnetic radiation is inflicting rapidly increasing damage to all forms of life with the deployment of 5G now in full swing. See ‘Deadly Rainbow: Will 5G Precipitate the Extinction of All Life on Earth?’

Of course, all forms of military violence – invariably done to gain control over biosphere resources – as well as the preparation for it, destroys vast areas of the natural environment (including the creatures that live in it) either deliberately or as ‘collateral damage’. See ‘Ten Reasons Why Militarism is Bad for the Environment’.

As can be readily observed, the destruction of biodiversity is a primary subset of the destruction of the biosphere. Every living organism needs habitat to survive. Every time we destroy part of the biosphere, we destroy the habitat of the organisms that live in it. But we also destroy life and biodiversity directly too. How much longer can the wolf, for example, hold on against the onslaught? See ‘Bill Allowing 90 Percent of Idaho’s Wolves to Be Killed Passes House and Senate’.

Humanity generally is so unconcerned about destruction of the biosphere and the biodiversity cost that goes with it, that we studiously ignore this cost, even when it impacts our closest relatives, human and otherwise. See West Africa’s chimpanzees are on the brink of extinction! and ‘Western Chimpanzee’.

And even the most iconic of species, such as the elephant, are not safe from the human onslaught. From 26 million elephants in 1800, the elephant population of Africa is down to 415,000, thanks to poaching for ivory, ‘trophy hunting’, destruction of habitat and other human causes. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has now listed the African forest elephant as ‘critically endangered’ and the African savanna elephant as ‘endangered’. See ‘Disappearing Elephants’ and ‘Africa’s elephants now endangered by poaching, habitat loss’.

Of course, destruction of habitat takes an almost infinite variety of forms when it comes to Homo sapiens. The latest farming venture to threaten elephant habitat is just now being created. See ‘From poaching to avocados, Kenya’s elephants face new threat’.

Besides this, assaults on particular species are pushing many endangered species to the brink of extinction. Wildlife trafficking, for example, is worth up to $20 billion each year. Illegal wildlife products include jewelry, traditional medicine, clothing, furniture, and souvenirs, as well as some exotic pets, most of which are sold to unaware/unconcerned consumers in the West although China is heavily implicated too. And to mention elephants again in this context: every 15 minutes an elephant is killed for its tusks. See Stop Wildlife Trafficking.

But if we are not concerned about the iconic species, can you imagine the collective concern for those millions of creatures of which we have never even heard, let alone given a name? And yet, as the work of Professor Gerardo Ceballos and his colleagues cited above clearly suggests, there are many unknown or obscure species that are part of the ‘co-extinctions’, ‘localized extinctions’ and ‘extinction cascades’ that are driving the ‘biological annihilation’ that they have documented.

So What Can We Do?

Well, in theory, we can participate in official responses to this crisis. See ‘Previewing the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration’.

But, as history demonstrates, we would be unwise to rely on responses generated by the elite and promulgated through its agents. Such efforts are inevitably designed to subvert effective outcomes, which they do with unrelenting monotony to which the record of uninterrupted destruction readily testifies.

Nevertheless, there is a great deal that we can do, personally, that will make a difference.

As is always the case with threats to biodiversity, the fundamental response to this crisis involves producing and consuming less. A lot less. ‘A difficult ask’ you might say. And more difficult than you probably realize, given the fundamentally dysfunctional emotional state that drives human over-consumption in materialist societies in the first place. See ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’.

But for those emotionally equipped for the challenge, you are welcome to join those who recognize the critical importance of reduced consumption and greater self-reliance by participating in The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth which outlines a ‘step by step’ strategy for achieving these ends. In addition, you are welcome to consider signing the online pledge of The Peoples Charter to Create a Nonviolent World.

Of course, you can also campaign to do other things as well. Halting war and all military activity of any kind would save the biosphere enormous resources so effort put into that is worthwhile. If you would like to campaign, strategically, to halt war there is a list of strategic goals for doing so in Campaign Strategic Aims.

In fact, if you wish to focus on strategically resisting any of the four primary threats to human existence – nuclear war, the deployment of 5G, the collapse of biodiversity and/or the climate catastrophe – you can read about nonviolent strategy, including strategic goals to focus your campaigns, on that website too.

Equally fundamentally, if you would like to nurture children to become powerful individuals capable of acting strategically to prevent and respond to violence while able to critique society and elite propaganda, see ‘My Promise to Children’. A child who is emotionally whole does not need to use consumption as a substitute for giving up their unique identity as a survival strategy during childhood, as the ‘Love Denied’ article also explains.

As an aside, if you want a better fundamental understanding of how we reached this point, see Why Violence?, Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice and ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

Conclusion

Halting the human rush to extinction through the destruction of biodiversity will require monumental effort. Raising awareness of this rapidly unfolding but still largely-hidden tragedy is, therefore, a high priority. But that is only the start. Enormous effort is required as well.

Of course, for those too terrified to contemplate the reality of ongoing destruction of Earth’s biodiversity and its implications for our own behaviour, denial or delusion are easy ‘psychological retreats’, particularly when our childhood survival largely depended on such tactics.

So it is going to take those who are powerful enough to deal with reality to make a stand.

We are on the cliff-edge of extinction. What will you do?

*

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.

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of Why Violence? His email address is [email protected] and his website is here.

He is a frequent contributor to ‘Global Research’.

Featured image is from Pixabay


Annex

The Earth Pledge

Out of love for the Earth and all of its creatures, and my respect for their needs, from this day onwards I pledge that:

  1. I will listen deeply to children. See ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’.
  2. I will not travel by plane
  3. I will not travel by car
  4. I will not eat meat and fish
  5. I will only eat organically/biodynamically grown food
  6. I will minimize the amount of fresh water I use, including by minimizing my ownership and use of electronic devices
  7. I will not own or use a mobile (cell) phone
  8. I will not buy rainforest timber
  9. I will not buy or use single-use plastic, such as bags, bottles, containers, cups and straws
  10. I will not use banks, superannuation (pension) funds or insurance companies that provide any service to corporations involved in fossil fuels, nuclear power and/or weapons
  11. I will not accept employment from, or invest in, any organization that supports or participates in the exploitation of fellow human beings or profits from killing and/or destruction of the biosphere
  12. I will not get news from the corporate media (mainstream newspapers, television, radio, Google, Facebook, Twitter…)
  13. I will make the effort to learn a skill, such as food gardening or sewing, that makes me more self-reliant
  14. I will gently encourage my family and friends to consider signing this pledge.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Accelerating Destruction of Earth’s Biodiversity: When Will We Act?
  • 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 last ten years of my career were spent running Jewish communities as an executive in the Jewish Federation movement across North America—it was a career quite literally bookended by conflict in Israel-Palestine. As the most recent round of violence exploded, Jewish communal organizations sprang into action, issuing statements blaming Palestinians for their own suffering and lack of sovereignty, ahistorically casting Israel as a wholly innocent victim.

During the time I spent at Federations in Boston, Los Angeles, Columbus, and London, Ontario, 3,590 Palestinians lost their lives at the hands of Israel’s security forces. I feel a level of complicity in each of their deaths. It is a sin I must bear. While I never personally picked up a weapon or wore the uniform of the Israel Defence Forces, a portion of every dollar I raised for Jewish Federations helped to create the material conditions that brutalize and subjugate Palestinians.

In Judaism, the concept of sin is not a state of permanence. In fact, when translated, the Hebrew word for sin literally means “to go astray.” That means that in the eyes of the almighty, we have the opportunity to find our path back to righteousness through t’shuvah, or repentance. To truly be repentant, we must first confess our transgressions, show true regret, and finally vow never to repeat our misdeeds.

For me, the path to repentance means that the words written here will likely alienate me from a community of friends and colleagues built over the course of a decade. That is a price I am willing to pay.

I am not alone in my position. In an EKOS poll of Canadian Jews, 37 percent say that they have a negative opinion of the Israeli government. That’s hardly the monolithic support for Israel that Jewish communal organizations claim to represent and it certainly doesn’t make one in four of us “anti-Israel” or “self-hating.” To the contrary, it makes us more concerned with Israel living up to its purported values than succumbing to nationalist violence to achieve its goals.

For my peers, younger Jews who have only ever known Israel as an occupier and military power, the split is even more pronounced. In the 2018 Survey of Jews in Canada, nearly half of Canadian Jews under 30 report being criticized for expressing concern about the policies of Israel. It’s not surprising. Jewish communal organizations work hard to stifle dissent, shaming those who would question the morality of Israel and driving out anyone with a differing viewpoint.

For organizations like the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) and Jewish Federations, there is only one acceptable view: blanket support of Israel’s policies that have led to the dehumanization of Palestinians. Far from democratic or representative of Canadian Jews, the boards of directors of Federations and communal organizations are mostly packed with obtuse and reactionary voices in Jewish communities and those with the most money to put behind their words. Rather than being the mainstream of Jewish communal life, those voices are the extreme.

Jewish communal and advocacy organizations know full well they often represent only the most hardline voices in our communities but would rather support the morally bankrupt leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu, pedaling an ideology that ends in the bombing of civilians in Gaza or the theft of Palestinian land in the West Bank, than to be truly representative of the opinions of Canadian Jews. The 54-year occupation, tacitly supported by CIJA, Jewish Federations, and other communal institutions, has led to what Human Rights Watch and B’Tselem, Israel’s largest human rights organization, call apartheid and is directly responsible for this moment of devastation.

In our tradition, we seek t’shuvah not only for ourselves, but also for the entirety of the Jewish people. It’s time. It’s time to admit the sins done against the Palestinian people and begin the long path of repentance. It’s time to listen to the voices demanding an end to violence and occupation that has been ever present throughout the entirety of our lives. It’s time to end this and vow: never 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.

Joe Roberts is a veteran political strategist in both the US and Canada, Executive Director of the Centre for Canadian Progress, Co-Host of the political podcast New Left Radio, and Managing Director at Jewish Currents Magazine. Follow him on Twitter @Joe_Roberts01.

Featured image: Separation wall between Israel and the West Bank near Jerusalem. Photo by Mazur Travel/Shutterstock.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on I’m a Former Jewish Federation CEO—and I Oppose Israel’s Actions Against Palestinians
  • 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.

***

As Oman’s UK-trained police confront popular protests against unemployment and corruption in the dictatorial Gulf state, the British military prepares to deploy an aircraft carrier to a new UK naval base in Oman, and the head of the Royal Air Force praises his Omani counterpart.

Britain’s closest ally in the Gulf has been rocked by three days of protests in the largest show of dissent against its unelected Sultan since the Arab Spring in 2011.

Police have fired tear gas, deployed armoured vehicles and mass arrested protesters, raising concern over the British government’s extensive support for Oman’s monarchy.

It comes as Britain’s new aircraft carrier set sail on Saturday on a voyage that will see her stop off at the UK’s growing naval base in Duqm, Oman, and with the head of Britain’s Royal Air Force currently meeting his Omani counterpart.

Thousands of Omanis are protesting against high levels of unemployment and corruption, as well as police crackdowns on their initial attempts to demonstrate.

All political parties are banned in Oman where it is a criminal offence to insult the Sultan, who rules with absolute power. The only independent newspaper, Al Zaman, has been shut down for attempting to cover corruption.

Declassified recently showed that until at least last year, Oman’s ruler was secretly advised by a British-dominated privy council that held midnight meetings at his lavish palace. Its members have included General Nick Carter, the current head of the British military and Richard Moore, the chief of intelligence agency MI6.

Other high-level advisers to the Sultan have been Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, and Lord Geidt, an ex-private secretary to the Queen who is now responsible for stopping corruption among British government ministers.

British advisers dominate the Sultan’s privy council. (Photo: In the Thick of It)

It is not known whether the Sultan followed all the economic and strategic advice provided by his privy council, but Oman spends more on its military per person than almost any other country in the world and has a vast national debt.

Much of the regime’s military equipment has been bought from British arms companies, which have received billions of pounds from Oman since the Arab Spring in 2011.

Those protesters were partly placated when Oman’s then Sultan, Qaboos bin Said, created 10,000 new jobs in the police force. However such short-term tactics to reduce unemployment have saddled his successor, his nephew Haitham bin Tarik, with more national debt, a problem compounded as revenue from oil reserves fell 35% at the start of 2021.

Anonymous opposition sources inside Oman told Declassified last week that discontent about the economy was at an all-time high and had risen since our privy council revelations. People were afraid to speak out openly for fear of reprisals and some worry that Oman’s newly expanded cyber security apparatus could intercept their messages.

GCHQ, Britain’s electronic surveillance force, has three listening stations based at secret locations in Oman. In addition, Crossword – a cyber security company chaired by Richard Dearlove, a former head of MI6 who sat on the Sultan’s privy council – announced last week that it was setting up its Middle East headquarters in Oman.

Despite concern at being monitored, on Sunday morning people gathered outside the labour ministry in Sohar, an industrial city in northern Oman. They were almost immediately arrested by large numbers of riot police, but a handful of photos from the protest went viral and trended in Oman on Twitter.

Another group of around 30 men attempted to protest in Sohar on Monday morning, but were surrounded by a similar number of riot police vehicles and taken away in a police coach. Almost identical scenes were repeated in Salalah, a city 850 km southwest of Sohar.

A larger group then gathered near the labour ministry in Sohar where they were chased away by riot police. Some protesters resorted to throwing stones against well-protected police units, who responded with tear gas.

The British government approved the export of £16.6-million worth of tear gas to Oman in August 2015, and has allowed smaller quantities to be shipped there in the last 12 months, according to research by Campaign Against Arms Trade.

Oman’s police have also had extensive training from the UK, including at the College of Policing in Britain as well as public order sessions with officers from Northern Ireland and its state-owned company, NI-CO.

The training is currently being delivered through the Foreign Office’s Gulf Strategy Fund.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland trained Oman’s riot police in 2017. (Photo: Declassified UK)

As smaller groups of protesters continued to march around the streets of Sohar on Monday morning, armoured vehicles belonging to Oman’s army were seen approaching the city and police set up roadblocks.

Almost 100 serving British troops are on loan to Oman’s military and UK army officers serve in Omani armoured units and military intelligence. Their rules of engagement are classified, but early versions show they were permitted to assist with internal security.

By midday on Monday, riot police were seen snatching individuals from the streets of Sohar and officials warned people not to film the security forces or discuss them on social media platforms such as WhatsApp.

Local media were also censored by the information ministry while state TV initially ignored the protests, belatedly publishing some photos from the protest only once they were being reported by international media.

Later on Monday fresh protests broke out in Salalah, in support of the activists in Sohar. Many of the protesters in Salalah appear to come from the mountainous Dhofar region, which has a long history of resistance to the Omani Sultans and fought against British special forces in the 1970s.

Their protests continued late into the night and were met with a markedly smaller police presence. By the end of Monday, the police released many of the protesters who had been arrested.

However, this concession did not stop an even larger wave of protests starting on Tuesday morning, as youths in Salalah returned to the streets at first light.

Protests also took place in at least eight other cities: Sur, Nizwa, Ibri, Ibra, Rustaq, Suwayq, Al-Khaburah and again in Sohar.

Nabhan al-Hanashi, a political exile and chairman of the Omani Centre for Human Rights, told Declassified that the protests should not come as a surprise.

“The people in Oman, especially the unemployed, were waiting for reforms to take place a long time ago,” he commented. “During the last days of Qaboos they were silenced. When Haitham took over, he promised the people he would do lots of reforms and hold corrupt officials to account. But nothing happened.”

An activist in Oman, who asked to remain anonymous for safety reasons, told Declassified:

“As an Omani citizen I feel upset that we carry the Omani government’s mistakes. We as people don’t have a real opinion on the laws. We cannot oppose the government and there’s no freedom of expression to demand our rights, so we protest with our brothers and sisters for justice and fighting the corruption that is covered up by powerful figures in the government. We demand freedom of media, more power to the people, jobs and economic reforms.”

The head of Britain’s Royal Air Force (RAF), Sir Mike Wigston, met his Omani counterpart amid the protests on Tuesday morning and described him as a “great” friend. Around 24 RAF personnel are on loan to Oman, including pilots and engineers. Historically, Oman’s rulers have used aircraft to attack opposition groups.

Police tactics on Tuesday varied from place to place, with some protesters being given water bottles while others were pursued by riot police. A water cannon and armoured police trucks were seen inside Sohar, where protesters staged a sit-in at the site of the old Globe Roundabout, which was a centre of demonstrations during the Arab Spring.

Experts told Declassified the water cannon may have been produced by a South Korean arms company.

Andrew Smith from Campaign Against Arms Trade told Declassified his group was particularly concerned by videos showing Omani police firing tear gas.

“The regime in Oman avoids a lot of the international scrutiny it deserves, but these images show the repression that it uses to entrench its authoritarian rule,” he said.

“For decades now, the UK has armed and supported the Omani dictatorship, helping to secure its position regardless of the threats and abuses that are inflicted on opponents.

“As long as the UK and other arms-dealing governments are arming human rights abusers, there will always be a risk that those weapons are used in this way.

“The arms sales are also a sign of political support and often go hand-in-hand with an intense political and military collaboration – such as in the case of Oman where the UK has military bases and a long history of military training.

“There must be a full investigation into whether UK-made tear gas or other weapons have been used in the attacks, and an end to the shameful policy that allowed for them to be sold in the first place.”

Last month, Oman’s former foreign minister Yusuf bin Alawi predicted another Arab Spring could soon sweep the region “because nothing changed” since 2011.

The UK Foreign Office would not tell Declassified when Britain last provided public order training to Oman’s police. Instead, a spokeswoman said:

“The UK urges all countries to uphold the rule of law. We are aware of demonstrations in Oman are monitoring the situation closely.”

Under Oman’s Basic Law, any “associations whose activities are inimical to social order” are illegal. The UK Ministry of Defence did not respond to Declassified’s questions about whether British troops were assisting Oman’s response to the protests or whether General Carter still sat on the Sultan’s privy council.

Last night, Omani state television announced that the Sultan had ordered 2,000 full-time government jobs be temporarily opened, but protests look set to continue for a fourth day.

*

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.

Phil Miller is a staff reporter at Declassified UK, an investigative journalism organisation that covers the UK’s role in the world. 

Featured image: Protests in Oman started on Sunday in Sohar. (Photo: Declassified UK) 

Pakistan, China, India and the Afghan Chessboard

May 26th, 2021 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Apocalyptic scenario is unwarranted 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonetheless, Qureshi has made a good beginning to rebuild bridges in the Beltway. A Voice of America commentary says,

“US efforts to solidify plans for what comes next appear to have taken on renewed urgency in recent days, leaning on outreach from the White House and the Pentagon to overcome a decade of strained ties and start to win over Pakistani officials.

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books—books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, ‘What is history, but a fable agreed upon? ‘”—Professor Robert Langdon

The Decline of an Empire

Why did World War One happen?  The conventional fable agreed upon begins on June 28, 1914 with the assassination of Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo.  The aftermath of the assassination spiraled out of control.  It was like an unstoppable train speeding down the tracks.  Suddenly all of the Western powers were at war.  When the armistice was signed on November 11, 1918 forty million people lay dead.  Exactly five years to the day after the assassination of the Archduke, the Treaty of Versailles was signed.  Germany alone accepts all the guilt for the war.  The end.

Well, it was not “The End”.  The outcome of The First World War led to World War Two.  The outcome of WW2 led to the Cold War.  “Winning” the Cold War created the mujahideen; rebranded as Al Qaeda it led to the Global War On Terror, and never-ending wars.  

In the 21st century the U.S. and its allies squandered their blood and treasure on never-ending criminal wars.  Millions of people the U.S. slaughtered in West Asia are dismissed as “collateral damage”.  Meanwhile, China has been using its resources for development, and lifting millions of people out of poverty.

The U.S. Empire has been in a long decline for decades.  More Americans are falling into poverty, and the U.S. has been steadily falling in the United Nations Index of Human Development.  It currently ranks number 28th among developed countries.  The index is a measure of infant mortality, healthcare, life expectancy, education, and per capita income.  The U.S. infrastructure, such as road, rail and airports, public utilities, and the internet are behind other developed countries, too.  

China’s economy is expected to surpass the U.S. in 2028.  Russia has also revitalized its economy in the last 20 years.  Every advance that China and Russia make is propagandized by the U.S. as “aggression”.  

Instead of competing peacefully with China and Russia, the U.S. has engaged in a New Cold War.  Each passing year the world grows closer to a Hot War.  The Doomsday Clock of nuclear annihilations was at 14 minutes to midnight at the end of the Cold War.  It is now at 100 seconds to Armageddon.  That is the closest it has ever been.  There is no effort in the U.S. to turn back the clock.  

August 2014 was the centennial of The First World War.  The year was a grim reminder, which momentarily gave people pause, and a slew of articles resulted.  For instance, Graham Allison wrote an article that appeared in The Atlantic:  Just How Likely Is Another World War? . Allison assessed the similarities and differences between 1914 and 2014.  His conclusion was:

”For the ‘complacent’ who live in what Gore Vidal labeled the ‘United States of Amnesia’, the similarities should serve as a vivid reminder that many of the reasons currently given for discounting threats of war did not prevent World War I.” 

Then Allison optimistically concluded that another world war is, “unlikely if statesmen in both the U.S. and China reflect on what happened a century ago.”  Does anybody see “wise statesmen” reflecting, or see much concern in the United States of Amnesia?  [The blindness, entrenched mediocrity and exceptionalist values of the US ruling cliques constitute also a central point of alarm in Russian geostrategic analyst  Andrei Martyanov’s indispensable book trilogy on US decline.—Ed)

There is no viable anti-war liberal class in the U.S. demanding dialogue, diplomacy and compromise among nations.  The U.S. has exited treaties, which were designed to prevent catastrophic wars.  The U.S. has criminally abandoned international law and the United Nations Charter.  Instead the U.S. has come up with its own “rules-based international order”. International law is based on treaties among nations.  The “rules” are diktats made in Washington and Brussels, imposed on the rest of the world by U.S. militarism.

In the unipolar world after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. did as it pleased.  It ruled the air, land and seas.  With the rise of China and Russia the U.S. does not compete peacefully, nor does it show any desire to.  Diplomacy, negotiation and compromise are dirty words to U,S. warmongers, of which there are many.  

International capitalism is not based on peaceful competition.  Instead it is based on military power, financial blockades, blackmail, and might makes right.  International capitalism is a system of imperialism, monopoly, and war.  When an empire is challenged, it lashes out.  Empires try to destroy their competitors.  Empires project their own lust for power and world domination onto all competitors.

In the early 20th century the sun never set on the British Empire.  Metaphorically, the sun started to set with the rise of Germany.  The British saw a rising Germany as a threat to its goal of world domination.  

The following essay summarizes how the British Empire set out to destroy Germany in 1902.  It led to The Great War.  The similarities of that era are frighteningly similar to the U.S. paranoia and hostility to a rising China and Russia today.            

Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner and The Society of the Elect

The authors of The Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War claim that it was Great Britain that started World War One, and not Germany.  It is a convincing story.  The authors George Docherty and James MacGregor call their book a conspiracy fact.

The story begins in the late 1800s.  The British Empire (aware that control of world trade was essential for supremacy) ruled the seas.  In 1870 a young Cecil John Rhodes migrated to a British colony in southern Africa.  After failing at farming he set out in pursuit of diamonds, which had been discovered in a region, which was later named Rhodesia.  With the financial backing of Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the young Rhodes monopolized the diamond trade.  He became fantastically wealthy and founded the De Beers diamond company.  

In 1895 gold was discovered in the Transvaal Republic controlled by Dutch settlers, known as Boers.  Rhodes teamed up with Sir Alfred Milner, who was the British commissioner for Southern Africa.  Together with a small group of wealthy Britons they instigated the Boer War in order to grab the gold for themselves.   

Rhodes and Milner went on to form a secret society.  As Rhodes had written earlier:

”Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire, and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for the making of the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.”

Rhodes’ ambition was to control all of the world’s wealth, for the benefit of the British Empire.  He believed in the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon race, and he believed that the British Empire should rule the world. After Rhodes’ early death in 1902, Alfred Milner became the leader of the secret society.  Milner was so admired by Rhodes that he is quoted as having said:

“If Milner says peace, I say peace.  If Milner says war, I say war.  Whatever Milner says, I say ditto.”   

Conspiracy Facts

The authors of the “Hidden History” uncovered many World War 1 documents, which lay the blame for WW1 on Rhodes’s secret society.  Authors George Docherty and James MacGregor built on the work of Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley’s book The Anglo-American Establishment.  Quigley wrote:

“One wintery afternoon in February 1891, three men were engaged in an earnest conversation in London.  From that conversation were to flow consequences of the greatest import to the British Empire and the world as a whole.  For these men were organizing a secret society that was, for more than fifty years, to be one of the most important forces in the formulation of British imperialism and foreign policy.”

“The three men thus engaged were already well known in England.  The leader was Cecil Rhodes, fabulously wealth empire builder and the most important person in South Africa.  The second was William T. Stead, the most famous, and probably the most sensational , journalist of the day.  The third was Reginald Baliol Brett, later known as Lord Esher, friend and confidant to Queen Victoria, and later to be the most influential advisor to King Edward Vll, and King George V.”

The Boer War was a long and costly war for Britain.  It marked the beginning of the decline of the British Empire.  Rhodes established his secret society of elites to reverse the decline.  He named it The Society of the Elect.  

By the turn of the 20th century, Germany was a rising power.  It was outpacing Great Britain in industry, finance, science, technology, commerce and culture.  Germany was acquiring colonies and expanding its navy.  The Society of the Elect viewed every German advancement as an act of aggression.  They conspired to start a war that would crush Germany, so that the British Empire would remain supreme.

Circles Within Circles

The Society of the Elect was organized with circles within circles.  The inner circle was Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner, W. T. Stead, The Viscount Esher, the Marquess Salsbury, Lord Rosebery, and Nathaniel “Natty” Rothschild.  King Edward VII was a central member, and after his death in 2010, King George V was too.  According to “Hidden History”:

“Stead was there to influence public opinion, and Esher acted as the voice of the King.  Salisbury and Rosebery provided the political networks, while Rothschild represented the international money power.  Milner was the master manipulator, the iron-willed, assertive intellectual who offered that one essential factor:  strong leadership.”

The Society of the Elect had an outer circle, which they named the “Association of Helpers”.  The Helpers were like-minded elites from the ruling class.  They were royalty, imperialists, financiers, greedy profiteers, war mongers, and egotistical and corrupt politicians.  The Helpers were willingly manipulated, often unknowingly, by the inner circle.

Some recruits to the Helpers were Jan Christian Smuts, Arthur Balfour, Edward Grey, Richard Haldane, H. H. Asquith, Lord Roberts, David Lloyd George, Sir Edward Carson, Frederick Sleigh Roberts, Alfred Harmsworth, and Winston Churchill.    

During WW1 Churchill was among the most ruthless imperialists and warmongers.  He is quoted as having said:

“I think a curse should rest on me, because I love this war. I know it’s smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment – and yet I can’t help it – I enjoy every second of it.”

The Propaganda Machine

The Boer War was an important prelude to World War 1.  It started off badly in 1899.  It was unpopular at home, and a drain on the British Empire.  In 1902 it ended badly too, with the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Boers.  

Tens-of-thousands of men, women and children died of disease and starvation in British concentration camps.  This would prove to be an important event in the early development of propaganda.

It was the British who began perfecting propaganda to promote the Boer War and to cover up its ugly aftermath.  Newspapers had become an affordable mass medium of influence.  The Society of the Elect had Helpers who owned the newspapers and published war propaganda eagerly.  Rhodes had written of his planned secret society that it “should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the mind of the people”.

Winston Churchill was a self-promoting war correspondent sent to South Africa during the Boer War.  He returned home as a self-aggrandizing hero.  His wild story of being captured by the Boers, and his harrowing escape made him a national celebrity.  In 1900 he was elected to Parliament, and remained there until his death in 1964.  

Even as a declining empire, the British navy was supreme in the early 20th century.  The British naval policy was to keep its navy as large as the next two naval powers combined.  When Kaiser Wilhelm II started expanding Germany’s navy the British propaganda called it “German aggression” and interfering with “freedom of the seas”.  Haven’t we heard similar cries of alarm in recent times?

Like many contemporary cartoons and posters, the plucky Boers were depicted as the underdogs taking on the overwhelming might of the British Empire, the undisputed superpower of the era. Here the cartoon depicts them as the diminutive Lilliputians from Gulliver’s Travels. As in the classic book, they have subdued and tied up the giant Gulliver. (Boer War Archive)

Yet, Kaiser Wilhelm’s policy was to keep his navy at less than two-thirds the size of the British navy. The German threat to the British Empire was invented propaganda, and the hype of a German invasion was ludicrous propaganda to frighten the public.

 The Triple Entente       

The Society of the Elect made ententes with France and Russia for a war on Germany.  The alliances were secret, unknown to the public, Parliament and most of the Cabinet.  

The British had secret military “non-binding military staff conversations” with Belgium going back to 1906.  In 1911 Belgium collaborated with France and Great Britain on how to defend Belgium’s “neutrality” from a German invasion.  Both offensive and defensive alliances are a violation of neutrality.  

Belgium had instituted military conscription in 1913, and began making plans for a war with Germany.  As “Hidden History” reports:

“Documents found in the Department of Foreign Affairs in Brussels shortly after the war began proved Anglo-Belgian collusion at the highest levels, including the direct involvement of the Belgian foreign secretary, had been going on for years.”  

The Society of the Elect needed ententes with France and Russia because of their large land armies and strategic locations.  The Society secretly promised Russia the prize of Constantinople and the Dardanelles, after the planned breakup of the Ottoman Empire.  Russia had long-coveted a warm-water port.  The Society promised France the return of Alsace-Lorraine, which the French had lost to Germany in 1871.  The secret triple entente planned to divvy up German overseas colonies among themselves.   

Germany knew that it had two hostile empires on its borders.  The German army was confident that it could defend against either one.  But a simultaneous invasion by both Russia and France could be fatal.  A large and speedy German army was maintained for defense.  Military thinking at the time was that the best defense is a speedy offense.

In 1905 General Count van Schlieffen presented a defensive plan.  It became known as the Schlieffen Plan.  If both Russia and France attacked, then the German army would go through Belgium to attack the French from behind their lines.  After the German army quickly defeated France, the plan was to rush to the eastern front to defend against the slower moving Russians.  Time was of the essence.  One day’s delay could result in disaster.

From military intelligence and leaked information, the Society of the Elect learned of the Schlieffen plan.  In 1904 a spy in the German army known only as Le vengeur (The Avenger) sold the entire Schlieffen plan to the French.  Also a general on the German staff was the brother-in-law of the King of Belgium, and could have revealed the Schlieffen Plan.  The Society of the Elect used the Schlieffen Plan to set a trap.  They had to make it appear that Germany was the aggressor.  Otherwise, the British Parliament and the public would not support a war in Europe.  

Again, according to “Hidden History”, Belgian neutrality was a sham:

“Belgium was involved in secret military plans for a possible war of aggression against an unsuspecting Germany but almost a decade later would be presented as the innocent victim of German aggression.”  

The Kaiser knew that the Schlieffen plan would likely fail if the British declared war too.  The British could send its army across the English Channel to slow the German army in France, while Russia invaded from the east.  The British navy could attack and blockade Germany from the North Sea, and it could protect France’s coast.  The French navy could then be dispersed to the Mediterranean to deal with the German navy based in Pula, Austria on the Adriatic Sea.

Mobilization is an Act of War

It was understood in 1914 that the mobilization of an army was a de facto declaration of war.  If Russia and France mobilized their armies, then Germany was confronted with a fatal disaster, unless they moved quickly.  When Germany invaded Belgium, the Society of the Elect got their excuse to go to war.  The trap was sprung.  

Here is what the “Hidden History” says about mobilization:

“The Franco-Russian Military Convention [of 1892] was very specific in declaring that the first to mobilise must be held the aggressor, and that general mobilization ‘is war’”.

The “Hidden History” documents the sequence of events that occurred after the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand.  

The Balkans had been a hotbed of conflict for years.  Serbia was aggressively seeking a “Greater Serbia” of Slavic people.  Nationalism was running high, and there was deep hostility towards Austria, because of its 1908 annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Ottoman Empire.

Serbia reacted with jubilation at the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo.  Austria was outraged at the assassination of their future king.  According to “Hidden History”, Austria had solid evidence that Serbia was behind the assassination.  Austria then spent three weeks contemplating a response.  On July 23rd Austria sent Serbia a list of 10 demands, and gave them 48 hours to reply.  

On July 25th Serbia’s answer was to mobilize its army, which was a de facto act of war.  Later the same day Austria began mobilizing.  On July 28th Austria declared war on Serbia, and on July 29th Austria bombarded Belgrade.  On July 30th Kaiser Wilhelm still hoped to placate Austria and Serbia.

According to “Hidden History”, the Kaiser did not give Austria a “blank cheque” of military support, as stated in so many history books:  

“It is claimed that, in a deliberate attempt to force a war on Europe, the Kaiser gave an unconditional assurance to Austria by a so-called blank cheque.  In fact, Austria-Hungary’s need to respond to Serbian aggression was endorsed by others including Britain and the British press.  The Kaiser and his advisors supported a local solution to a local problem and made absolutely no special preparation for war.”   

As “Hidden History” says, Germany showed no intention of attacking Russia.  Nor did Russia have any obligation to defend Serbia militarily.  So, the fable that the assassination of the Archduke triggered a chain reaction of opposing alliances is just that, a fable.

The only “blank cheque” to go to war was the secret entente between Britain, France and Russia.  On July 24th the Russians and the French secretly agreed to mobilize their armies.  The British soon followed.

German trench, 1916. Some get a rest while others stand guard.

Winston Churchill was the First Lord of the Admiralty, and on July 29th he ordered the British navy to its war station in the North Sea.  This put the British navy in position to attack and blockade Germany.  Society of the Elect member Richard Haldane gave the order to mobilize the British army.  The Society of the Elect took Great Britain to war even before the parliament authorized it.

On July 26th Russia began mobilizing.  Russia was mobilized by July 30th.  The Kaiser sent a telegram to his cousin Czar Nicholas asking him to halt mobilization.  The Kaiser waited in vain for 24 hours for an answer.  Then Kaiser Wilhelm had his ambassador in St. Petersburg ask Russia’s minister of foreign affairs to halt Russia’s mobilization.  On August 1st the Russian minister said that the Russian mobilization would continue.  Later that day Germany declared war on Russia.

Kaiser Wilhelm II Tried to Avoid War 

According to “Hidden History”, Kaiser Wilhelm II did everything he could to avoid war.  The Kaiser did not threaten to attack or declare war on France.  He repeatedly asked his British cousin King George V if he could guarantee French neutrality.  He pledged that if France would remain neutral, then Germany would not attack it.    

King George V never gave a straight answer.  Instead he deceived his cousin, telling him that Britain would stay out of a “ruinous” war.  It was a stall for time that Germany did not have.  Belgium began mobilizing on July 31st.  When the Kaiser could wait no longer he mobilized the German army on August 1, 1914.  Germany was the last country to mobilize.

On August 1st the German ambassador to London, Prince Karl Max Lichnowsky, met with Sir Edward Grey.  While speaking with Lichnowsky, Grey allegedly offered that if Germany pledged not to attack France, then England would remain neutral and guarantee France’s “passivity”.  Kaiser Wilhelm II accepted immediately; only to be told later by King George that “there must be some misunderstanding”.  Lichnowsky then advised that if Great Britain would remain neutral, Germany would respect Belgium neutrality.  Sir Edward Grey replied that he could not give this assurance since “England must have its hands free”.  It had all been a stall for time, which Germany did not have.

Babies On Bayonets

On August 2nd the Kaiser asked Belgium for “permission“ to pass his army through.  On August 3rd Belgium declined, and Germany declared war on France.  On August 4th Germany invaded Belgium.  The Germans were met with stiff resistance from Belgium’s 234,000-man army.

The British propaganda machine went to work.  They feigned outrage at the violation of Belgium neutrality.  There were horrifying stories in the press about German atrocities, executions, rapes, and “babies on bayonets”.  The British propaganda machine called it “The Rape of Belgium”.  

The British dredged up the 1839 Treaty of London.  It supposedly obligated the British to defend Belgium’s neutrality.  To “protect” Belgium, the British sent an expeditionary force to France on August 9th, as was secretly planned since 1906 and 1911 with French and Belgium military planners.     

The public was told that defending Belgium was a matter of honor for the British.  The propaganda was that there would be a domino effect if the British Empire failed to act.  Supposedly, Germany would conquer all of Europe; even the world.  None of it was true, and Belgium neutrality was a sham.  

On August 4th King George declared war on Germany.  The British parliament did not vote on the war until August 6th, and then it was to fund the war.  The Society of the Elect got their war.  Instead of reversing the decline of the British Empire though, the Great War accelerated it.  The British came out of the war exhausted and deeply in debt to the U.S.  They would have to cut spending, and reduce the size of their navy.  The British Empire would never rule the seas again.

The U.S. is Now Facing its “World War 1” Moment

So, why did the First World War happen?  The authors of The Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War say that based on documentary evidence, a small group of wealthy British elites took the world to war to preserve the supremacy of the British Empire.  It was a war the Society of the Elect chose.  

As Edward Bernays said:

“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”

Bernays was the “father of propaganda”, a dishonor usually reserved for Joseph Goebbels.  During the First World War Bernays was developing war propaganda for the Allies.  It was the British and the U.S. that began perfecting war propaganda.

It takes war propaganda to stampede the public to war.  Propaganda is how the British got the public to support the Boer War in 1899.  Having used propaganda successfully for that war, they began using propaganda in the early 1900s to prime the British people for a war with Germany.  Fear is the most effective weapon of war propaganda.

As Henry Kissinger infamously said in 2002:  

“The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being.”

And as H. L. Mencken said of democracy:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

The U.S. is now facing its “World War 1” moment.  For several decades the public has been feed constant fear mongering towards Iran, Russia and China.  The public is easily frightened into giving up their liberties for the promise of protection from “hobgoblins”.  Those who profit from war are not the ones who fight and die in them.  With every new hobgoblin the war profiteers invent they line their pockets with money and feed their insatiable ego with power.  

Another world war could come at any time.  The weapons of mass destruction are locked, loaded and ready to go in a matter of seconds.  The next world war will be The Last World War.

*

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 Greanville Post.

David William Pear is a journalist, columnist, editor, and commentator.  His articles, essays and interviews have an emphasis on U.S. foreign policy, history, and economic and social issues. He is an advocate for peace, ending US wars of aggression, and promoting economic, political and social justice. An Associate Edityor with The Greanville Post, he has been writing also for The Real News Network, OpEdNews, American Herald Tribune, and other publications since 2009. He is a member of Veterans for Peace, Saint Pete (Florida) for Peace, CodePink and the Palestinian-led non-violent organization International Solidarity Movement. 

All images in this article are taken from The Greanville Post

America Dominant Again (in Arms Sales)

May 26th, 2021 by William D. Hartung

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

When it comes to trade in the tools of death and destruction, no one tops the United States of America.

In April of this year, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) published its annual analysis of trends in global arms sales and the winner — as always — was the U.S. of A. Between 2016 and 2020, this country accounted for 37% of total international weapons deliveries, nearly twice the level of its closest rival, Russia, and more than six times that of Washington’s threat du jour, China. 

Sadly, this was no surprise to arms-trade analysts.  The U.S. has held that top spot for 28 of the past 30 years, posting massive sales numbers regardless of which party held power in the White House or Congress.  This is, of course, the definition of good news for weapons contractors like Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin, even if it’s bad news for so many of the rest of us, especially those who suffer from the use of those arms by militaries in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, the Philippines, and the United Arab Emirates.  The recent bombing and leveling of Gaza by the U.S.-financed and supplied Israeli military is just the latest example of the devastating toll exacted by American weapons transfers in these years.

While it is well known that the United States provides substantial aid to Israel, the degree to which the Israeli military relies on U.S. planes, bombs, and missiles is not fully appreciated. According to statistics compiled by the Center for International Policy’s Security Assistance Monitor, the United States has provided Israel with $63 billion in security assistance over the past two decades, more than 90% of it through the State Department’s Foreign Military Financing, which provides funds to buy U.S. weaponry.  But Washington’s support for the Israeli state goes back much further. Total U.S. military and economic aid to Israel exceeds $236 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2018 dollars) since its founding — nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars.

King of the Arms Dealers

Donald Trump, sometimes referred to by President Joe Biden as “the other guy,” warmly embraced the role of arms-dealer-in-chief and not just by sustaining massive U.S. arms aid for Israel, but throughout the Middle East and beyond.  In a May 2017 visit to Saudi Arabia — his first foreign trip — Trump would tout a mammoth (if, as it turned out, highly exaggerated) $110-billion arms deal with that kingdom.

On one level, the Saudi deal was a publicity stunt meant to show that President Trump could, in his own words, negotiate agreements that would benefit the U.S. economy. His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a pal of Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS), the architect of Saudi Arabia’s devastating intervention in Yemen, even put in a call to then-Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson. His desire: to get a better deal for the Saudi regime on a multibillion-dollar missile defense system that Lockheed was planning to sell it.  The point of the call was to put together the biggest arms package imaginable in advance of his father-in-law’s trip to Riyadh.

When Trump arrived in Saudi Arabia to immense local fanfare, he milked the deal for all it was worth. Calling the future Saudi sales “tremendous,” he assured the world that they would create “jobs, jobs, jobs” in the United States.

That arms package, however, did far more than burnish Trump’s reputation as a deal maker and jobs creator.  It represented an endorsement of the Saudi-led coalition’s brutal war in Yemen, which has now resulted in the deaths of nearly a quarter of a million people and put millions of others on the brink of famine.

And don’t for a second think that Trump was alone in enabling that intervention. The kingdom had received a record $115 billion in arms offers — notifications to Congress that don’t always result in final sales — over the eight years of the Obama administration, including for combat aircraft, bombs, missiles, tanks, and attack helicopters, many of which have since been used in Yemen.  After repeated Saudi air strikes on civilian targets, the Obama foreign-policy team finally decided to slow Washington’s support for that war effort, moving in December 2016 to stop a multibillion-dollar bomb sale. Upon taking office, however, Trump reversed course and pushed that deal forward, despite Saudi actions that Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA) said “look like war crimes to me.”

Trump made it abundantly clear, in fact, that his reasons for arming Saudi Arabia were anything but strategic.  In an infamous March 2018 White House meeting with Mohammed bin Salman, he even brandished a map of the United States to show which places were likely to benefit most from those Saudi arms deals, including election swing states Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  He doubled down on that economic argument after the October 2018 murder and dismemberment of Saudi journalist and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi at that country’s consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, even as calls to cut off sales to the regime mounted in Congress.  The president made it clear then that jobs and profits, not human rights, were paramount to him, stating:

“$110 billion will be spent on the purchase of military equipment from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and many other great U.S. defense contractors. If we foolishly cancel these contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries — and very happy to acquire all of this newfound business. It would be a wonderful gift to them directly from the United States!”

And so it went.  In the summer of 2019 Trump vetoed an effort by Congress to block an $8.1-billion arms package that included bombs and support for the Royal Saudi Air Force and he continued to back the kingdom even in his final weeks in office. In December 2020, he offered more than $500 million worth of bombs to that regime on the heels of a $23-billion package to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), its partner-in-crime in the Yemen war.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE weren’t the only beneficiaries of Trump’s penchant for selling weapons.  According to a report by the Security Assistance Monitor at the Center for International Policy, his administration made arms sales offers of more than $110 billion to customers all over the world in 2020, a 75% increase over the yearly averages reached during the Obama administration, as well as in the first three years of his tenure.

Will Biden Be Different?

Advocates of reining in U.S. weapons trafficking took note of Joe Biden’s campaign-trail pledge that, if elected, he would not “check our values at the door” in deciding whether to continue arming the Saudi regime.  Hopes were further raised when, in his first foreign policy speech as president, he announced that his administration would end “support for offensive operations in Yemen” along with “relevant arms sales.”

That statement, of course, left a potentially giant loophole on the question of which weapons would be considered in support of “offensive operations,” but it did at least appear to mark a sharp departure from the Trump era.  In the wake of Biden’s statement, arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE were indeed put on hold, pending a review of their potential consequences.

Three months into Biden’s term, however, the president’s early pledge to rein in damaging arms deals are already eroding. The first blow was the news that the administration would indeed move forward with a $23-billion arms package to the UAE, including F-35 combat aircraft, armed drones, and a staggering $10 billion worth of bombs and missiles. The decision was ill-advised on several fronts, most notably because of that country’s role in Yemen’s brutal civil war. There, despite scaling back its troops on the ground, it continues to arm, train, and finance 90,000 militia members, including extremist groups with links to the Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.  The UAE has also backed armed opposition forces in Libya in violation of a United Nations embargo, launched drone strikes there that killed scores of civilians, and cracked down on dissidents at home and abroad. It regularly makes arbitrary arrests and uses torture.  If arming the UAE isn’t a case of “checking our values at the door,” it’s not clear what is.

To its credit, the Biden administration committed to suspending two Trump bomb deals with Saudi Arabia.  Otherwise, it’s not clear what (if any) other pending Saudi sales will be deemed “offensive” and blocked. Certainly, the new administration has allowed U.S. government personnel and contractors to help maintain the effectiveness of the Saudi Air Force and so has continued to enable ongoing air strikes in Yemen that are notorious for killing civilians.  The Biden team has also failed to forcefully pressure the Saudis to end their blockade of that country, which United Nations agencies have determined could put 400,000 Yemeni children at risk of death by starvation in the next year.

In addition, the Biden administration has cleared a sale of anti-ship missiles to the Egyptian regime of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the most repressive government in that nation’s history, helmed by the man Donald Trump referred to as “my favorite dictator.”  The missiles themselves are in no way useful for either internal repression or that country’s scorched-earth anti-terror campaign against rebels in its part of the Sinai peninsula — where civilians have been tortured and killed, and tens of thousands displaced from their homes — but the sale does represent a tacit endorsement of the regime’s repressive activities.

Guns, Anyone?

While Biden’s early actions have undermined promises to take a different approach to arms sales, the story isn’t over.  Key members of Congress are planning to closely monitor the UAE sale and perhaps intervene to prevent the delivery of the weapons.  Questions have been raised about what arms should go to Saudi Arabia and reforms that would strengthen Congress’s role in blocking objectionable arms transfers are being pressed by at least some members of the House and the Senate.

One area where President Biden could readily begin to fulfill his campaign pledge to reduce the harm to civilians from U.S. arms sales would be firearms exports.  The Trump administration significantly loosened restrictions and regulations on the export of a wide range of guns, including semi-automatic firearms and sniper rifles. As a result, such exports surged in 2020, with record sales of more than 175,000 military rifles and shotguns.

In a distinctly deregulatory mood, Trump’s team moved sales of deadly firearms from the jurisdiction of the State Department, which had a mandate to vet any such deals for possible human-rights abuses, to the Commerce Department, whose main mission was simply to promote the export of just about anything.  Trump’s “reforms” also eliminated the need to pre-notify Congress on any major firearms sales, making it far harder to stop deals with repressive regimes.

As he pledged to do during his presidential campaign, President Biden could reverse Trump’s approach without even seeking Congressional approval. The time to do so is now, given the damage such gun exports cause in places like the Philippines and Mexico, where U.S.-supplied firearms have been used to kill thousands of civilians, while repressing democratic movements and human-rights defenders.

Who Benefits?

Beyond the slightest doubt, a major — or perhaps even the major — obstacle to reforming arms sales policies and practices is the weapons industry itself. That includes major contractors like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, and General Dynamics that produce fighter planes, bombs, armored vehicles, and other major weapons systems, as well as firearms makers like Sig Sauer.

Raytheon stands out in this crowd because of its determined efforts to push through bomb sales to Saudi Arabia and the deep involvement of its former (or future) employees with the U.S. government.  A former Raytheon lobbyist, Charles Faulkner, worked in the Trump State Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and was involved in deciding that Saudi Arabia was not — it was! — intentionally bombing civilians in Yemen. He then supported declaring a bogus “emergency” to ram through the sale of bombs and of aircraft support to Saudi Arabia.

Raytheon has indeed insinuated itself in the halls of government in a fashion that should be deeply troubling even by the minimalist standards of the twenty-first-century military-industrial complex. Former Trump defense secretary Mark Esper was Raytheon’s chief in-house lobbyist before joining the administration, while current Biden defense secretary Lloyd Austin served on Raytheon’s board of directors.  While Austin has pledged to recuse himself from decisions involving the company, it’s a pledge that will prove difficult to verify.

Arms sales are Big Business — the caps are a must! — for the top weapons makers.  Lockheed Martin gets roughly one-quarter of its sales from foreign governments and Raytheon five percent of its revenue from Saudi sales.  American jobs allegedly tied to weapons exports are always the selling point for such dealings, but in reality, they’ve been greatly exaggerated.

At most, arms sales account for just more than one-tenth of one percent of U.S. employment. Many such sales, in fact, involve outsourcing production, in whole or in part, to recipient nations, reducing the jobs impact here significantly. Though it’s seldom noted, virtually any other form of spending creates more jobs than weapons production. In addition, exporting green-technology products would create far larger global markets for U.S. goods, should the government ever decide to support them in anything like the way it supports the arms industry.

Given what’s at stake for them economically, Raytheon and its cohorts spend vast sums attempting to influence both parties in Congress and any administration.  In the past two decades, defense companies, led by the major arms exporting firms, spent $285 million in campaign contributions alone and $2.5 billion on lobbying, according to statistics gathered by the Center for Responsive Politics.  Any changes in arms export policy will mean forcefully taking on the arms lobby and generating enough citizen pressure to overcome its considerable influence in Washington.

Given the political will to do so, there are many steps the Biden administration and Congress could take to rein in runaway arms exports, especially since such deals are uniquely unpopular with the public.  A September 2019 poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, for example, found that 70% of Americans think arms sales make the country less safe.

The question is: Can such public sentiment be mobilized in favor of actions to stop at least the most egregious cases of U.S. weapons trafficking, even as the global arms trade rolls on?  Selling death should be no joy for any country, so halting it is a goal well worth fighting for. Still, it remains to be seen whether the Biden administration will ever limit weapons sales or if it will simply continue to promote this country as the world’s top arms exporter of all time.

*

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

Corporate Courts Threat to Insects

May 26th, 2021 by Phil Carter

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Countries around the world have been slow to ban insecticides such as neonicotinoids despite the ongoing loss of insects, including key pollinators, globally.

One reason may be the threat of litigation in a system of secret corporate courts that exists to adjudicate Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses in international trade agreements.

The ISDS system allows companies to sue national governments for damages and lost profits if they pass laws banning hazardous chemicals.

Banned

Jean Blaylock, of Global Justice Now, an NGO campaigning on trade agreements, told The Ecologist: “ISDS has often been used by big business, including pesticide and chemical companies, as a tool to bully and pressure governments to make the decisions that the corporations want.”

History shows that bans on dangerous chemicals work.

In Japan, the Minamata disaster of the mid-20th century involved serious birth defects due to methyl mercury effluent that contaminated fish that people then ate.

It was ended with strict environmental regulations in the early 1970s that banned mercury in industrial effluent at detectable levels.

However, it is likely that Japan would have difficulty passing such laws in the present situation with trade agreements.

Trade

Blaylock gave two examples from Canada. In the first, when Quebec in Canada banned the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes – meaning to tidy lawns and gardens – Canada was sued by pesticide maker Dow Agroscience, forcing the government to settle out of court.

In another case with ominous implications for emerging disasters like Minamata, she said “when Canada banned the chemical MMT in petrol, which is suspected of causing nerve damage, they were sued by the manufacturer, Ethyl.”

Canada was forced to remove the ban in 1998, paying $13 million in lost profits to Ethyl under the terms of a settlement. Subsequently, a 2001 study published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine stated there were “major concerns with regard to public health effects” from exposure to MMT.

Scott Sinclair of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives explained by email about pressure against Mexico, which passed a decree banning glyphosate which is used in the herbicide Roundup manufactured by German chemical giant Bayer.

“The reaction from US agribusiness was swift. In March, a coalition of agribusiness groups including CropLife America demanded the US government take trade action against Mexico for violating the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA).”

Laws

Sinclair said that the USMCA retains ISDS provisions with regard to Mexico, although they were removed between Canada and the US. In addition, the old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which it replaced allows legal action to be taken by companies for another three years.

Thus Bayer, which is a member of Croplife America, still has the possibility to sue the Mexican government.

In the Asia-Pacific region, two competing trade agreements that have recently been agreed are starkly different regarding corporate courts. One, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) includes provisions for companies to sue governments.

However, in an indication that corporate courts may be starting to fall out of favor, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) that is to come into force in late 2021 is reported to not include ISDS.

Sinclair said the decision is definitely a step in the right direction, and a huge improvement over the CPTPP. He added that in North America the majority of ISDS claims have been related to environmental protection, causing a huge problem for governments that want to pass laws contrary to corporate interests.

Catastrophic

However, Japan has signed both the CPTPP and the RCEP, one with corporate courts and one without, and Sinclair said that private investors tend to be aggressive in using the dispute settlement mechanism.

In light of this, it seems likely that chemical companies will not hesitate to sue for damages under the agreement that allows them to do so, and the threat of this continues to exist if Japan passes necessary laws banning harmful pesticides.

The landmark ban on methyl mercury, the chemical responsible for the Minamata disaster, ended one of the worst human tragedies of the last century, and stands as an example for the present.

Against the background of the ongoing worldwide insect extinction event, rice-field insects such as dragonflies that were common only 30 years ago have one by one become endangered, with broad-spectrum insecticides playing a devastating role.

As insect species after insect species ends up on Japan’s Red List, the failure to heed this lesson of a previous generation is likely to have catastrophic consequences.

*

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.

Phil Carter is a freelance environmental journalist based in Japan.

Featured image: Village rice fields, Hida Shirakawa-go, Gifu-ken, Japan, July 2010. Photo: Joel Abroad via Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA).

This incisive article first published by Global Research in June 2020 addresses the issue of Annexation

***

Israeli soldier executing the kidnapping of several Nahalin villagers southeast of Bethlehem in the West Bank, including Mohammad Afif Fannoun, on June 12, 2020.

When you visualize it, as I try to, what does Israel’s forthcoming annexation of parts of the West Bank look like to you? I mean, what images do you expect to see when Israel makes its declaration, as is expected, in July? Do you perhaps imagine scenes of violence, terror and incitement to play out on social media and on the few seconds of mainstream TV that will be devoted to the announcement?

If you are expecting “an event” as Israel announces its third grand robbery of Palestinian land, you should know that Israel’s annexation is an ongoing process that has been in the making for several decades now.

The statements of condemnation by various international bodies already emerging (more to be expected, of course) sound “mundane” and “normal”, echoing as they do, words addressed to Israel many times since Israel forcibly altered the facts of dominion, demography and land ownership in Jerusalem, beginning June 1967, and the West Bank.

Words, never meaningful action.

These statements continue to be utterly devoid of the consternation and helpless fury engendered in Palestinians by Israel’s continuing obliteration of the Palestinian Muslim and Christian character of the land of Palestine. By Judaizing Jerusalem, and now large swatches of the West Bank, Israel has succeeded in its project of drawing a curtain over Palestine’s history since 70 A.D., and claiming that our history only began with the advent of Theodor Herzl and the Zionist movement. Herzl is known to have said, “If whole branches of Jews must be destroyed, it is worth it, as long as a Jewish state in Palestine is created.”

The obliteration of Palestinian history has driven hundreds of Palestinians to record their personal histories by sharing images like this family picture of my own great grandfather Ismail, which I re-posted recently on Facebook with the following caption:

My great grandfather Ismail ibn (son of) Mahmoud ibn Khalil Al Najjar of #Lifta, in Lifta, Jerusalem, Palestine, circa 1945

“This country will either be Eretz [the land of] Israel with an absolute Jewish majority and a small Arab minority, or Eretz Ishmael [Ismail], and Jewish emigration will begin again if we do not expel the Arabs one way or another.”

– Spoken at a closed discussion in the summer of 1967, a conversation published in 1968 in the Israeli journal De’ot (‘Opinions’), by Israel Eldad (Sheib)

For a long time now, we have been witnessing on social media the incremental (“crawling”) process of Israel’s annexation unfold in the form of video clips and images. Some show outrageous scenes of Jewish “settlers” burning down ancient olive trees or, for that matter, a Palestinian family! Mainstream media carefully labels them “far right” — a few bad apples, and the band plays on.

Some clips manage to show the construction of Jewish colonies going up (with Palestinian labor!), but mostly we only see what Palestinians see and experience behind their walled off property that has already been confiscated by Israel. They are mostly scenes of Israeli harassment and containment, because the process of annexation does not end with the actual confiscation of Palestinian land and property (and, if need be, eviction and displacement); the next step is securing the robbery through a vicious well-orchestrated campaign of terror and detention.

Take, for example, the following embedded video clip posted live on Facebook by Yousef Shakarnah on 12 June 2020 and titled in Arabic, “Storming the village of Nahalin, stirring up terror — a campaign of arrests, including the arrest of Mohammad Afif Fannoun, gas fire and sound bombs, as part of the project of control and annexation.”

‘Storming the village of Nahalin, stirring up terror — a campaign of arrests, including the arrest of Muhammad Afif Fannoun, gas fire and sound bombs, as part of the project of control and annexation’.

Nahalin (also spelled Nahaleen), southwest of Bethlehem in the West Bank, is ringed by the vast Jewish “settlement bloc” of Gush Etzion. The lands of the village have already been subjected to a narrative that obliterates their Palestinian Muslim character, making way for the heist facilitated by the state for its “settler” Jews: The Jerusalem Post in 2015, for example, published a fake-news or hasbara piece claiming that 4,000 years ago “Tens of thousands of Jews, if not more, had lived in the area before even one Palestinian ever set foot in Gush Etzion … Thus, any claim that the current Jewish residents of Gush Etzion have seized lands here is false, even defamatory.”

When you view the video clip, what do you see? An annexation or a routine “security” operation? I asked two Jewish Israeli friends to take a look at the video to help me understand the Hebrew. The language and cultural divide that exists in such videos present an obstacle, not just for American viewers, but also for Palestinian and Jewish Israeli viewers, neither one of whom understands, literally, what the other is saying.

The video clip did not convey “annexation” to them. One of them wrote, in good faith, to say:

Not sure what you’re trying to write… but, unless I’m missing something, I don’t think this recording of what looks like a routine and uneventful visit is terribly meaningful. There may be thousands of such visits every year, and that is very significant, but I don’t see this one visit as remarkable. Again, unless there’s something I’m missing, or perhaps important context that I’m unaware of. Finally, I’m not sure I’d title it Annexation in Progress… Given current discussions about the expected annexation — of something, whether it is much of the Jordan Valley or less than that — this title could be misleading. When I see something like this, I think Occupation As Usual is a good title — which I’ve used over the years.

Technically, my friend is correct. He is in line with all the “technical” claims Israel makes to spit in the face of Palestinian reality— as in, for example, “there is no occupation.”

However, the process of ongoing Israeli robbery of Palestinian land, for that’s what “annexation” means, is inextricable from Israel’s acts of containment of Palestinian individuals, like the “routine” and “uneventful” act shown in the video clip above. There are thousands other similar incidents of Israeli soldiers coming to kidnap a young Palestinian man (or round up a group of them, as in this case), to subsequently torture and interrogate him and then subject him to a kangaroo Israeli military court that puts him away in prison for months or years.

Every single such act is a rape, an outrage, an annexation. We are not numbers.

Annexation is the deliberate taunting and bullying you see in the video clip, implying, as another friend put it, Israel “will do what it wants, when it wants, and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

For all the analogies made between Jerusalem and Minneapolis, for Palestinians, the path of demonstrations, legislation and finally reconciliation is simply not an option.

I’ll leave you now with an expressive description of some of what is on view in the video clip of the Israeli soldiers coming for Mohammad Afif Hannoun of Nahalin, written by the writer and activist Diane Langford, who took a look at it, at my request:

I see performative enjoyment of the ‘task’ as when the tooled up soldier blows a kiss. Can’t see anyone threatening them yet they are dressed in full battle kit that kind of reminds me of astronauts on the moon walk, something other worldly and dehumanising of the wearer, creating an atmosphere that something awful is going to happen, something violent. Their monstrous garb and over-protection of themselves by means of massive guns and full body armour reminds me that health workers around the world are facing Covid 19 without proper personal protective clothing. Is there a human being inside that shell? Constant radio chattering. What are they talking about? Trigger fingers twitching menacingly, and yet they act in a casual way and when a shot is fired it is taken as lightly as swatting a fly. The soldier bowls a grenade down the street as if he’s in a game of cricket.

The filmmaker coughs and struggles to breathe, we hear him gasping and fear for his well-being. We hear a woman’s distressed voice. What are they doing to her? A soldier suddenly appears on the roof of the big white house we’ve been looking at. A shot is fired. A woman comes toward the camera in distress. Watching this makes me feel tense and fearful. It is watching fascism up close in a time when many countries seem to be hurtling towards fascism based on this very model.

And, as another friend commented, Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil” comes to mind.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated

Selected Articles: The Zionists on the Defensive

May 26th, 2021 by Global Research News

The Zionists on the Defensive

By Philip Giraldi, May 25, 2021

Yes folks, there is an international conspiracy and it is all about “protecting” Israel. It operates through front and lobbying groups that uniquely promote the interests of a foreign country, Israel, even when those interests do serious damage to the host country where the lobbyists actually live.

The Emperor’s New Rules

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, May 25, 2021

The world is reeling in horror at the latest Israeli massacre of hundreds of men, women and children in Gaza. Much of the world is also shocked by the role of the United States in this crisis, as it keeps providing Israel with weapons to kill Palestinian civilians, in violation of U.S. and international law, and has repeatedly blocked action by the UN Security Council to impose a ceasefire or hold Israel accountable for its war crimes.

Israel-Gaza: Pilots Bombed Palestinian Buildings to ‘Vent Frustration’, Says Report

By Middle East Eye, May 25, 2021

Israeli air force pilots’ bombing and flattening of Palestinian residential towers in the besieged Gaza Strip in its military offensive earlier this month was a way to vent their frustration for failing to stop Palestinian armed factions from firing rockets into Israeli towns, according to an Israeli TV report.

How American Journalism Became a Mouthpiece of the Deep State

By Peter Van Buren, May 25, 2021

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

Spike Protein Damages Vascular Cells

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 25, 2021

During 2020, many people learned more about coronaviruses, and specifically the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. Pictures of the spiked virus have been plastered across the news media. The image is reminiscent of a chain mace, or flail. This was a medieval weapon with a spiked steel ball at the end of a chain or leather strap. The image may be frightening. It turns out researchers believe the spikes are responsible for significant vascular damage leading to severe disease.

UK Health Secretary Suggests Critics of Vaccine Passports Are “Crazies”

By Paul Joseph Watson, May 25, 2021

UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock suggested critics of the vaccine passport policy were “crazies” after he retweeted a post which disparaged those who have security and privacy concerns about the program. Mail on Sunday commentator Dan Hodges urged people to “ignore the crazies” as he effusively praised the NHS tracking app for being a centralized surveillance hub.

CDC Investigating Reports of ‘Mild’ Heart Problems in Teens, Adolescents After COVID Vaccine

By Megan Redshaw, May 25, 2021

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in a May 17 statement said, reports of myocarditis to date seemed to occur predominantly in adolescents and young adults, more often in males than females, more often following the second dose and typically within four days after vaccination. Most cases appeared to be “mild” and follow-up is ongoing.

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

By Lance Johnson, May 25, 2021

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

Outrage Over Israel’s Human Rights Violations Is Fueling the Global BDS Movement

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, May 25, 2021

Israeli police are now threatening to carry out mass arrests against Palestinian citizens of Israel — arrests intended to punish those who took part in sit-ins and other protests in solidarity with Palestinians living in East Jerusalem and Gaza. This latest attack on Palestinian rights comes just days after Israeli police once again attacked Palestinians at Al Aqsa Mosque, and after the Israeli military viciously bombed Gaza for 11 days, killing 248 Palestinians and wounding more than 1,900, destroying 16,800 Palestinian homes and displacing tens of thousands of Palestinians.

Drivers Beware: The Deadly Perils of Blank Check Traffic Stops

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, May 24, 2021

For better or worse, from the moment you’re pulled over, you’re at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.” This is what I call “blank check policing,” in which the police get to call all of the shots.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Zionists on the Defensive
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Will Pakistan Give US Post-Afghanistan Military Bases?

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Just days after senior PBOC officials spoke up about moving to stabilize the yuan as it continued to strengthen against the dollar, Chinese banks have reportedly stepped in to buy dollars and sell the yuan in the open market, the latest in a series of interventions that are seemingly stretching the limits of Beijing’s authoritarian capability to control markets

Over the past month, reports about another crackdown on crypto trading and mining by Beijing sent prices of digital currencies reeling, while senior CCP officials have stepped in to forcibly cool speculation driving up commodity prices.

On top of all this, the weakening greenback has driven the yuan to its strongest level in nearly three years, hurting China’s competitiveness at a time when an ongoing state-ordered deleveraging has sent China’s all-important credit impulse into negative territory, limiting the outlook for growth just as the outlook for China’s economy is becoming increasingly important to the global narrative.

As for the interventions, a handful of traders told Bloomberg that large Chinese state-owned banks were selling yuan in the open market Tuesday. Despite this, and a weaker-than-expected yuan fixing, USD/CNY fell 0.3% to 6.4030, the yuan’s strongest level since June 2018.

Reports noted possible intervention in both USD/CNY and USD/CNH pairs at around the 6.4000 level in order to stem the yuan’s appreciation.

With month-end pressures building, driving the yuan higher, the intervention comes as the Chinese currency arrives at an important technical level that highlights just how much the yuan has strengthened during the dollar’s recent bear run.

The dollar is also at a critical level…

…and looking ahead, a renewed currency war pitting China against the US and the dollar against the yuan could represent a fresh threat to market stability, as any reversal of the greenback’s recent weakness (which has, much to Beijing’s delight, sparked renewed talk of the greenback shedding its global reserve status) could upset several consensus trades  (sell-side analysts have been writing about how “short dollar” is perhaps the biggest global ‘consensus trade’ for almost a year).

All this is happening as the impact of the credit tsunami unleashed in 2020 by Beijing to combat the COVID pandemic is fading fast as China’s credit impulse officially turned negative, threatening to send a deflationary shockwave across the globe.

The direct intervention comes just days after the PBOC signaled that it wouldn’t allow the yuan to strengthen too much, too quickly.

In a statement released Sunday, the deputy governor of the PBOC said the yuan would remain “basically stable,” while another central bank official wrote that the yuan should appreciate to offset the higher costs of commodity imports. However, that second essay, published in a state-backed magazine on Friday, has since been deleted, according to Bloomberg.

That Beijing is having trouble reconciling this is hardly a surprise. China’s economic nabobs now once again find themselves in the unenviable task of trying to control everything – fighting commodity speculation, a currency at a nearly three-year high, a crypto market that serves as a backdoor for wealth fleeing the country – and even the dominance of Chinese tech firms that have become so economically powerful, they have made President Xi and the rest of the senior leadership uncomfortable. And ultimately, Beijing is doing all this as it tries to pull a literal rabbit out of a hat: trying to spur economic growth while continuing to deleverage, while hampering the international competitiveness of its biggest tech companies.

*

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 Chinese Banks Buy Dollars to Weaken Yuan in Latest Intervention
  • 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 massive and continuous demonstrations in solidarity with Palestinians around the world including in Israel certainly was a major factor for the imperialist powers and the Arab States to convince the U.S./Israel governments that after 11 days the time for a ceasefire had arrived.

Yet despite this political defeat for the Zionist State of Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s own future depends on inciting the fascist settlers and Israeli police to provoke new unrest in intensifying tensions against Palestinians. This reality makes the ceasefire fragile.

On May 19 (a day before the ceasefire) Netanyahu invited more than 70 foreign ambassadors and diplomatic representatives to a meeting in an attempt to justify brutal bombing of Gaza by a completely fabricated and illusory narrative.

Toward the end of his deceitful and unconvincing presentation, he warned that “If the perception is that they [Palestinians] gained a victory that is a defeat for all of us.”

Of course Netanyahu by saying “all of us”, meant “all” of those dictatorial regimes in the region which are considered as friends of Israel.

However, the next day even the friendliest countries to Israel saw a ceasefire would serve them better. They feared that if Israel continues killing more children in Gaza, more people would unite to demonstrate against the Zionist State of Israel to the point of an uprising against their own fragile undemocratic regimes.

Millions of working people and youth around the world, (by the power of their massive demonstrations) showed that the false notion of Israel being the “victim” and its “right” to bring death and destruction to their “enemies” with impunity is no longer acceptable. People around the globe didn’t need BBC or CNN to be “informed” about the recent “conflict” since they were independently able to see the massacre live on social media.

They saw how the fourth powerful military in the world was inflicting death and destruction on the defenseless families in Gaza. This realization was beyond a specific religious group, certain ethnicity, or limited to people of a defined geopolitical area. Before the eyes of the world, Israel looked like merciless savages armed with the latest lethal military arsenals. The world opinion with the ongoing COVID pandemic disaster did NOT approve any military operation that destroyed the only COVID testing clinic in Gaza, much-needed hospitals, schools, and also a prominent building that housed foreign media outlets and reporters.

Huge demonstrations in support of Palestinians in the major cities in the U.S., the U.K., and other countries just days after the ceasefire speak volumes on how Israel has been discredited after decades of their brutal conduct as an oppressive occupier and how the “anti-Semite” labeling of their opponents is no longer effective to cover up their apartheid regime and their systematic ethnic cleansing.

There is no doubt the “anti-Semite” sentiments still exist and in some countries is very strong; however, those who propagate hate against Jews or attack the Synagogues are extreme right-wing and fascist groups like some of Trump’s supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6th, 2021.

Once again, millions of people around the world demonstrated that – first and foremost they are against wars and military destructive operations in general and in particular they are disgusted to see the defenseless Palestinian families and children face horrible death under the rubble caused by the Israeli precision and smart bombs.

By some estimates, on Saturday, May 22nd, about 200,000 people marched in London and gathered in Hyde Park, which undeniably was one of the largest demonstrations in support of Palestine in British history; demanded “Free Palestine” and “stop the war”.

One of the speakers who address this historical rally was Julian Assange’s partner Stella Moris. In her written statement, in part, she said that Julian Assange

“is paying with his freedom, and maybe his life… over publications that exposed war crimes in Iraq, torture in Guantanamo Bay and Israeli government’s policies in Palestine.” … “Julian published the words spoken by the Israeli government’s official behind closed doors, words that Israeli military materializes in the form of airstrikes that kill innocent men, women and children.”… “Public perception shapes our understanding of what is true and what is possible.” …

This is why the U.S. and U.K. have imprisoned Assange “to hamper our understanding and to prevent us from acting on that knowledge.”

Similar demonstrations have taken place before and after the ceasefire both inside and outside of Israel/Palestine, – from Sana’a to Berlin, from Chicago to Tel Aviv. These demonstrations not only condemned the savagery of the Zionist State of Israel but also raised the question of what steps should be taken to prevent more bloodshed by Israel.

In our time, all crises have a global character and cannot be solved on a local level. Any abstract solution (like Two-State Solution) would not end the occupation of Palestine. Certainly, this is not possible through the current “leadership” who have imposed themselves on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. The end of the occupation will not be possible via military operations by the weak army of Hamas or the corrupted and undemocratic clique of Mahmoud Abbas, who for many years have compromised the rights of Palestinians in lieu to be accepted and paid by the U.S./Israeli governments.

ONLY a united working people in Israel/Palestine with international support from the workers around the world (especially the imperialist countries) can create their own state which ends the capitalists’ rules and their divisive and discriminatory economical, political and social policies.

U.S. imperialism is the root cause of problems for the occupied Palestinians.

The hypocrisy of the Biden Administration toward the Palestinians and the State of Israel – like the past Administrations is nothing new but certainly, the deceptive narrative of “caring” for Palestinians by President Biden is disgusting. Like the old Imperial and colonial powers, the U.S. sees the Palestinians as their subjects.

They decide for Palestinians what is right or wrong and who is a good or bad leader for them. While Biden backed Israel in bombing Gaza as “Israel’s right to defend itself” and even praised Netanyahu for “degrading the capabilities” of the Palestinian “terrorists”, now he promises “to provide rapid humanitarian assistance and to marshal international support for the people in Gaza and in the Gaza reconstruction efforts.”

However this empty promise comes with an unworkable condition and that is the aid to Gaza will be through Mahmoud Abbas only, a corrupt politician who has no support or influence in Gaza!

President Biden’s insane position against Palestinians already has rattled his own Party. The average Democratic Party membership doesn’t approve the unconditional U.S. financial and military aid to Israel. Time has changed. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is growing among democratic-minded people and the American Jewish youth.

For the Zionists – who have to maintain more than seven decades of illegal occupation of Palestine and while they continue to steal Palestinians’ homes and lands under cover of “settlers” with the protection of their brutal police and unjust laws – constant tensions and wars are a necessity. For the Zionists, a peaceful time in the region means an end to their power and an end to their occupation. Without wars and confrontations, the Zionist State of Israel will fall apart.

*

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.

Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Porque é que a UE se destaca contra a China

May 25th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

O Parlamento Europeu, em  20 de Maio, congelou a ratificação do Acordo UE-China sobre investimentos, assinada em Dezembro pela Comissão Europeia após sete anos de negociações.  A resolução foi aprovada por uma esmagadora maioria com 599 votos a favor, 30 contra e 58 abstenções. É formalmente motivada como sendo a resposta às sanções chinesas contra membros do Parlamento Europeu, decididas por Pequim depois dos seus funcionários terem sido sujeitos a sanções, rejeitadas pela China, por violação dos direitos humanos, particularmente os do Uighur. Os legisladores da UE argumentam que, se bem que as sanções chinesas sejam ilegais porque violam o Direito Internacional, as sanções europeias são legais porque se baseiam na defesa dos direitos humanos aprovados pelas Nações Unidas.

Qual é o verdadeiro motivo que se esconde por trás da capa de “defesa dos direitos humanos na China”? A estratégia, lançada e liderada por Washington, de recrutar países europeus para a coligação contra a Rússia e a China. A alavanca fundamental desta operação é o facto de 21 dos 27 países da UE serem membros da NATO sob comando USA. Na primeira fila contra a China, tal como contra a Rússia, estão ao mesmo tempo os países de Leste, membros da NATO e da UE, que, estando mais ligados a Washington do que a Bruxelas, aumentam a influência dos EUA na política externa da UE. Uma política que segue substancialmente a dos Estados Unidos, sobretudo através da NATO. Mas nem todos os aliados estão ao mesmo nível: a Alemanha e a França fazem acordos com os Estados Unidos com base na conveniência recíproca, enquanto a Itália obedece, mantendo-se em silêncio em detrimento dos seus próprios interesses. O Secretário-Geral da NATO, Stoltenberg, pode assim declarar, no final da sua reunião com o Presidente francês Macron, em 21 de Maio: “Apoiaremos a ordem internacional com base em regras contra o impulso autoritário de países como a Rússia e a China”.

A China, que até agora a  NATO colocava em segundo plano como “ameaça” ao concentrar a sua estratégia contra a Rússia, está agora a ser posicionada ao mesmo nível. Isto vem na trilha do que estão a fazer em Washington. Aqui a estratégia contra a China está prestes a tornar-se lei. No Senado dos EUA, o projecto de lei S.1169 sobre a Competição Estratégica com a China, foi apresentado a 15 de Abril por iniciativa bipartidária do democrata Menendez e do republicano Risch. A exposição dos motivos do projecto de lei não deixa dúvidas de que o confronto é abrangente: “A República Popular da China está a incentivar o seu poder político, diplomático, económico, militar, tecnológico e ideológico para se tornar um concorrente estratégico global quase igual aos Estados Unidos. As políticas cada vez mais seguidas pela RPC nestas áreas, são contrárias aos interesses e valores dos Estados Unidos, dos seus parceiros e de grande parte do resto do mundo”. Nesta base, a lei estabelece medidas políticas, económicas, tecnológicas, mediáticas, militares e outras contra a China, com o objectivo de atacá-la e isolá-la. Uma verdadeira declaração de guerra, não no sentido figurativo. O Almirante Davidson, que dirige o Comando Indo-Pacífico dos Estados Unidos, pediu ao Congresso 27 biliões de dólares para construir uma cortina de bases de mísseis e sistemas de satélites em torno da China, incluindo uma constelação de radares em plataformas espaciais. Entretanto, a pressão militar dos EUA sobre a China está a aumentar: lançadores de mísseis da Sétima Frota estão a navegar no Mar do Sul da China, bombardeiros estratégicos da Força Aérea dos EUA foram estacionados na ilha de Guam, no Pacífico Ocidental, enquanto os drones Triton da Marinha dos EUA foram trazidos para mais perto da China, transferindo-os de Guam para o Japão. Na peugada dos Estados Unidos, a NATO está também a alargar a sua estratégia à Ásia Oriental e ao Pacífico onde – Stoltenberg anunciou – “precisamos de nos fortalecer militarmente juntamente com parceiros próximos como a Austrália e o Japão”. O Parlamento Europeu não deu, portanto, simplesmente mais um passo na “guerra de sanções” contra a China. Deu mais um passo no sentido de motivar a Europa para a guerra.

 Manlio Dinucci

 

 

 

Artigo original em italiano :

Perché la Ue si schiera contro la Cina

il manifesto, 25 de Maio de 2021

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos (NO WAR NO NATO)

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Porque é que a UE se destaca contra a China

Perché la Ue si schiera contro la Cina

May 25th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

Il Parlamento europeo ha congelato il 20 maggio la ratifica dell’Accordo Ue-Cina sugli investimenti, siglato in dicembre dalla Commissione europea dopo sette anni di trattative. La risoluzione è stata approvata a schiacciante maggioranza con 599 voti favorevoli, 30 contrari e 58 astenuti. Essa viene formalmente motivata quale risposta alle sanzioni cinesi contro membri del Parlamento europeo, decise da Pechino dopo che suoi funzionari erano stati sottoposti a sanzioni con l’accusa, respinta dalla Cina, di violazione dei diritti umani in particolare degli Uighur. I legislatori Ue sostengono che, mentre le sanzioni cinesi sono illegali poiché violano il diritto internazionale, quelle europee sono legali poiché si basano sulla difesa dei diritti umani sancita dalle Nazioni Unite.

Qual è il vero motivo che si nasconde dietro il paravento della «difesa dei diritti umani in Cina»? La strategia, lanciata e guidata da Washington, per reclutare i paesi europei nella coalizione contro la Russia e la Cina. Leva fondamentale di tale operazione è il fatto che 21 dei 27 paesi dell’Unione europea sono membri della Nato sotto comando Usa. In prima fila contro la Cina, come contro la Russia, ci sono i paesi dell’Est allo stesso tempo membri della Nato e della Ue, i quali, essendo più legati a Washington che a Bruxelles, accrescono l’influenza statunitense sulla politica estera della Ue. Politica che segue sostanzialmente quella statunitense soprattutto tramite la Nato. Non tutti gli alleati sono però sullo stesso piano: Germania e Francia si accordano sottobanco con gli Stati uniti in base a reciproche convenienze, l’Italia invece ubbidisce tacendo a scapito dei suoi stessi interessi. Il segretario generale della Nato Stoltenberg può così dichiarare, al termine dell’incontro col presidente francese Macron il 21 maggio: «Sosterremo l’ordine internazionale basato sulle regole contro la spinta autoritaria di paesi come la Russia e la Cina».

La Cina, che finora la Nato metteva in secondo piano quale «minaccia» focalizzando la sua strategia contro la Russia, viene ora messa sullo stesso piano. Ciò avviene sulla scia di quanto stanno facendo a Washington. Qui la strategia contro la Cina sta per diventare legge. Al Senato degli Stati uniti è stato presentato il 15 aprile, su iniziativa bipartisan dal democratico Menendez e dal repubblicano Risch, il progetto di legge S.1169 sulla Competizione Strategica con la Cina. La motivazione della legge non lascia dubbi sul fatto che il confronto è a tutto campo: «La Repubblica Popolare Cinese sta facendo leva sul suo potere politico, diplomatico, economico, militare, tecnologico e ideologico per diventare un concorrente globale strategico, quasi alla pari, degli Stati Uniti. Le politiche perseguite sempre più dalla RPC in questi ambiti sono contrarie agli interessi e ai valori degli Stati Uniti, dei suoi partner e di gran parte del resto del mondo». Su tale base, la legge stabilisce misure politiche, economiche, tecnologiche, mediatiche, militari ed altre contro la Cina, miranti a colpirla e isolarla. Una vera e propria dichiarazione di guerra, non in senso figurato. L’ammiraglio Davidson, che è a capo del Comando Indo-Pacifico degli Stati uniti, ha richiesto al Congresso 27 miliardi di dollari per costruire attorno alla Cina una cortina di basi missilistiche e sistemi satellitari, compresa una costellazione di radar su piattaforme spaziali.

Intanto aumenta la pressione militare Usa sulla Cina: unità lanciamissili della Settima Flotta incrociano nel Mar Cinese Meridionale, bombardieri strategici della US Air Force sono stati dislocati sull’isola di Guam nel Pacifico Occidente, mentre droni Triton della US Navy sono stati avvicinati alla Cina trasferendoli da Guam al Giappone. Sulla scia degli Stati uniti, anche la Nato estende la sua strategia all’Asia Orientale e al Pacifico dove – annuncia Stoltenberg – «abbiamo bisogno di rafforzarci militarmente insieme a stretti partner come Australia e Giappone». Il Parlamento europeo non ha dunque semplicemente compiuto un ulteriore passo nella «guerra delle sanzioni» contro la Cina. Ha compiuto un ulteriore passo per portare l’Europa in guerra.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Perché la Ue si schiera contro la Cina

The Zionists on the Defensive

May 25th, 2021 by Philip Giraldi

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Yes folks, there is an international conspiracy and it is all about “protecting” Israel. It operates through front and lobbying groups that uniquely promote the interests of a foreign country, Israel, even when those interests do serious damage to the host country where the lobbyists actually live. In Britain, for example, there are a Conservative Friends of Israel and a Labour Friends of Israel, comprising together 216 members of parliament and party officials. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been silent about Gaza apart from expressing “deep concern” and blaming both sides while Labour leader Keir Starmer, who has also been under pressure to say something, has focused on how four car loads of alleged Palestinian supporters in London may or may not have driven around shouting out “anti-Semitic” comments. Starmer, one recalls, ran on a leadership campaign pledging to root out “anti-Semitism” in the party as a response to previous leader Jeremy Corbyn’s apparently ill-advised public recognition that Palestinians are human beings. Also in Britain, contesting details of the standard narrative of the so-called holocaust can result in a large fine and even some jailtime.

In 2017, Al-Jazeera ran an undercover operation directed against various Israeli front groups in Britain and in the US which determined that officers from the respective Israeli Embassies, presumably intelligence linked, were meeting regularly with members of the alleged non-government organizations that had been set up to provide support for the Jewish state. In Britain, the interaction included explicit discussions on how to destroy the careers of politicians who were deemed to be insufficiently pro-Israeli. In the US the objective has been to disrupt the activities of pro-Palestinian groups, most particularly the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The pro-Israeli and anti-Arab initiatives were coordinated with and sometimes initiated by the Israeli Embassy officers, suggesting that they were actually intelligence operations.

That many American Jewish groups are collaborating directly with the Israeli Embassy raises two concerns. First, it is ipso facto a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which should require registration and complete transparency regarding one’s sources of income and interactions with the foreign embassy. And second, as many of the groups are in tax exempt status with the IRS as either charitable or educational foundations, that status should be rescinded given their foreign affiliation. Of course, the reality is that the Treasury Department has known all that and more for many years and has never taken any action relating to deceptive behavior by pro-Israel groups.

Elsewhere in Europe, “Holocaust denial” even if it only consists of challenging clearly fabricated “factual” details of the event can also land you in jail in Germany and France while criticizing the state of Israel is construed as anti-Semitism, a hate crime. Jewish groups have, in fact, promoted an official “International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance” (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which includes any criticism of Israel as a defining characteristic. The United States Department of State has accepted that definition and language.

Yes, the United States has an office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism and it is always headed by a Jew, as has been also the office in the Justice Department that continues to be dedicated to rooting out 90 year old Nazis. Meanwhile, the Republican Party, most particularly in its Trump version, is so close to Israel that it might reasonably be regarded as part of the Israel Lobby. And the Democrats are not much better, though there has been some dissent from progressives, which has led to the creation of a Zionist pressure group within the party called the Democratic Majority for Israel. It exists to defend Israel against any and all criticism while also protecting the billions of dollars and other benefits that the Jewish state receives from the US Treasury and government annually.

One might speculate that there is a whole federal government infrastructure devoted to Jewish and Israeli issues. How did that develop? Well, of course, money is what has made it happen. American politicians have notoriously always been easily corruptible, all it takes is a little cash. But no one is allowed to point out that obvious truth as linking Jews to money is regarded, by Jews and their captive media of course, as some kind of “anti-Semitic trope.”

Now it appears that a ceasefire is more-or-less in place but Israel’s ethnic cleansing that preceded its high-tech slaughter of Palestinian civilians who were being deliberately targeted has been perceived by the world, including many Americans, as particularly brutal. Which means the Zionist propaganda plus coercion machine has been working full time. Capitol Hill offices and the White House have no doubt been inundated with calls, emails and visits from constituents all singing the same song that was also being repeated by the President and Congress. It goes like this: “Israel is being attacked by Hamas terrorists and has a right to defend itself!” Sometimes there is a second verse which includes “The only democracy in the Middle East and America’s best friend and ally.”

Too bad that none of it is true, but the media also did its best to support the narrative by reporting how Hamas was launching “swarms” of rockets against Israel, making it appear as if a beleaguered Israel was valiantly defending itself against terrorist hordes. But the actual numbers told a different tale with only 12 Israelis killed after the violence erupted versus 232 Palestinians, including 65 children. Considerable infrastructure was also deliberately targeted and destroyed in Gaza versus limited damage in Israel while the calculated destruction of the building housing Associated Press (AP) and al-Jazeera should be seen as an attempt to eliminate any independent media observers on the ground in Gaza, even though AP predictably has hardly been critical of the Jewish state.

The Israel Lobby is, to be sure, expert at promoting and marketing its product. It is currently engaged in attacking celebrities and others who expressed any sympathy with the Palestinians while they were being slaughtered by the Israelis as anti-Semites. The larger and more openly combative Lobby groups like the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) have supporters in virtually every congressional district in the United States who can be called upon to get on the phone and start pouring out emails as needed. So every congress critter hears the call and knows what it means. And no one wants to have a hostile Israel Lobby on one’s back if there is any thought of being re-elected. In some cases, approaches include suggestions that significant donations to support one’s political campaign will either increase or be denied depending on what the legislator chooses to do or say.

And then there are the personal visits on Capitol Hill from the Israel lobbyists. The door is always open for the man or woman from AIPAC. Sometimes the Congressman is actually urged to sign a statement on his or her view of the conflict, a document carefully prepared in advance by The Lobby, of course. And the work by the Israel Firsters is almost always effective. Witness for example what took place concerning the assault on Gaza, where Congress and the White House tried to outdo each other in declaring how much they love Israel even though they don’t necessarily have to say or do anything as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did what he wanted anyway. Biden reportedly spoke with Netanyahu six times urging teethlessly “de-escalation” of the fighting but the Israeli each time insisted that he would continue the operation “mowing the grass” in Gaza until “its aim is met.”

The Israeli grip on the US government is and should be astonishing and one has to ask why the American people put up with it. They likely endure because they are unaware of the extent of it. If anyone still doubts the degree to which Jewish power is a major force in the United States it is only necessary as a test case to look at the Congressional and White House comments on Gaza, which served absolutely no American interest and which will only make the world even more anti-US due to the Administration’s enablement of the slaughter of the Palestinians. Washington’s UN Ambassador vetoed three Security Council resolutions calling for a cease fire, as is often the case, the only country to vote “no.”

Several aspects of the US role in the fighting particularly demonstrate the ability of Israel and its domestic lobby to get what they want from Washington even when it seems counterintuitive for the Administration and Congress to be falling in line. To be sure, 138 Congressmen and 29 Senators eventually signed onto letters urging a cease fire, but the texts tended to be generic, lacking any context, which means the recommendations were basically useless and not intended to go anywhere.

A highly partisan approach, in line with many of the comments by other government spokesmen, was reflected in a letter from Kevin McCarthy, the “leading Republican” (sic) in Congress, who released a statement confirming his allegiance to Israel. Part of it read:

“The ongoing rocket attacks against Israeli civilians show why America must act immediately to support Israel, condemn Hamas, and sanction those who fund terrorism. Instead of pressuring Israel to compromise with this terrorist group, Democrats should join Republicans in voting to cut off international funding for terrorists.

“That is why today, Rep. Brian Mast, a U.S. Army combat veteran who served alongside the Israel Defense Force (IDF), will push for a vote on the Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act of 2021.

“This bipartisan bill, which passed the House last Congress, would sanction foreign governments and individuals who fund Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, such as Iran.”

For starters, how exactly is it that a US Army combat veteran served alongside the Israeli Army? And now this great admirer of Israel is in Congress? Once upon a time one would lose US citizenship for serving in a foreign army. Mast must have missed something about swearing an oath to uphold the US Constitution, not Benjamin Netanyahu and his band of thugs and war criminals. And why are McCarthy and Mast including Iran in their indictment? Possibly because Tehran support of the Palestinian cause would be a pretext for another war? And what are McCarthy and Mast doing pledging anything at all to a foreign country which at the time was engaged in genocide?

Bad enough, but what is really appalling is the role of Joe Biden “the peacemaker” in hurriedly pushing through approval to provide the Israelis with $735 million dollars-worth of precision guided missiles, exactly the kind of weapon being used by Israel currently to kill Gazans. One might reasonably ask “What was Joe thinking?” but that raises the second question of “Was he thinking at all, apart from exercising knee jerk loyalty to Israel and its psychotic leader?” He did not have to provide more weapons to the Jewish state, which apparently was not running out of weapons of its own, but he did it anyway.

The United States already pays one fifth of Israel’s so-called “defense” budget and this extra contribution, as well as the funds provided annually to pay for Iron Dome defense, is on top of that. If there was any question whether the US was enabling the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians the question was surely answered by the decision made by the president, who knowingly provided US made weapons to be used by Israel to commit war crimes in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the US Arms Control Export Act and the existing Arms Supply Agreement between the US and Israel. He also was providing advanced tactical weapons to a country which is in violation of the Leahy Law due to its uninspected nuclear arsenal and is therefore ineligible for US government military assistance of any kind.

To be sure, some in Congress introduced a resolution to stop the weapons “sale” (a euphemism as Israel never pays for anything). Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib have proposed blocking the presidential authorization based on its one-sidedness and unsuitability when fighting is actually going on, but it was a futile gesture as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will surely let the bill die in committee. It will never reach the House floor for a vote. Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a similar resolution in the Senate which will likely suffer the same fate.

Tlaib has argued that “The US cannot continue to give the right-wing Netanyahu government billions each year to commit crimes against Palestinians. Atrocities like bombing schools cannot be tolerated, much less conducted with US-supplied weapons. To read the statements [from the Biden Administration] you’d hardly know Palestinians existed at all. No child, Palestinian or Israeli, whoever they are, should ever have to worry that death will fall from the sky. How many of my colleagues are willing to say the same, to stand for Palestinian human rights as they do for Israel? How many Palestinians have to die for their lives to matter?”

So it is all same old, same old. Biden, who boasts that American ties to Israel are “unbreakable,” has welcomed the cease fire in Gaza but it is at best a pause in what has become generational intercommunal warfare based on Israeli intentions to eliminate the Palestinians. And Biden will even be seen as having provided the weapons to further that process. Americans, who have no compelling interest in being involved at all apart from their domination by a ruthless Israel Lobby on foreign policy issues relating to the Middle East, will pay the piper as they rearm the Israelis and enable the next round of killing. Some believe that the tide of public opinion is turning against Israel due to its brutality, but I have my doubts as the Lobby has been in control for so long and knows exactly which buttons to push to get what it wants. That, the subversion and corruption of American democracy, is the real tragedy.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

Featured image is from The Unz Review

The Emperor’s New Rules

May 25th, 2021 by Medea Benjamin

All Global Research articles 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 is reeling in horror at the latest Israeli massacre of hundreds of men, women and children in Gaza. Much of the world is also shocked by the role of the United States in this crisis, as it keeps providing Israel with weapons to kill Palestinian civilians, in violation of U.S. and international law, and has repeatedly blocked action by the UN Security Council to impose a ceasefire or hold Israel accountable for its war crimes. 

In contrast to U.S. actions, in nearly every speech or interview, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken keeps promising to uphold and defend the “rules-based order.” But he has never clarified whether he means the universal rules of the United Nations Charter and international law, or some other set of rules he has yet to define. What rules could possibly legitimize the kind of destruction we just witnessed in Gaza, and who would want to live in a world ruled by them?

We have both spent many years protesting the violence and chaos the United States and its allies inflict on millions of people around the world by violating the UN Charter’s prohibition against the threat or use of military force, and we have always insisted that the U.S. government should comply with the rules-based order of international law.

But even as the United States’ illegal wars and support for allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia have reduced cities to rubble and left country after country mired in intractable violence and chaos, U.S. leaders have refused to even acknowledge that aggressive and destructive U.S. and allied military operations violate the rules-based order of the United Nations Charter and international law.

President Trump was clear that he was not interested in following any “global rules,” only supporting U.S. national interests. His National Security Advisor John Bolton explicitly prohibited National Security Council staff attending the 2018 G20 Summit in Argentina from even uttering the words“rules-based order.”

So you might expect us to welcome Blinken’s stated commitment to the “rules-based order” as a long-overdue reversal in U.S. policy. But when it comes to a vital principle like this, it is actions that count, and the Biden administration has yet to take any decisive action to bring U.S. foreign policy into compliance with the UN Charter or international law.

For Secretary Blinken, the concept of a “rules-based order” seems to serve mainly as a cudgel with which to attack China and Russia. At a May 7 UN Security Council meeting, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov suggested that instead of accepting the already existing rules of international law, the United States and its allies are trying to come up with “other rules developed in closed, non-inclusive formats, and then imposed on everyone else.”

The UN Charter and the rules of international law were developed in the 20th century precisely to codify the unwritten and endlessly contested rules of customary international law with explicit, written rules that would be binding on all nations.

The United States played a leading role in this legalist movement in international relations, from the Hague Peace Conferences at the turn of the 20th century to the signing of the United Nations Charter in San Francisco in 1945 and the revised Geneva Conventions in 1949, including the new Fourth Geneva Convention to protect civilians, like the countless numbers killed by American weapons in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Gaza.

As President Franklin Roosevelt described the plan for the United Nations to a joint session of Congress on his return from Yalta in 1945:

“It ought to spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries – and have always failed. We propose to substitute for all these a universal organization in which all peace-loving nations will finally have a chance to join. I am confident that the Congress and the American people will accept the results of this conference as the beginning of a permanent structure of peace.”

But America’s post-Cold War triumphalism eroded U.S. leaders’ already half-hearted commitment to those rules. The neocons argued that they were no longer relevant and that the United States must be ready to impose order on the world by the unilateral threat and use of military force, exactly what the UN Charter prohibits. Madeleine Albright and other Democratic leaders embraced new doctrines of “humanitarian intervention” and a “responsibility to protect” to try to carve out politically persuasive exceptions to the explicit rules of the UN Charter.

America’s “endless wars,” its revived Cold War on Russia and China, its blank check for the Israeli occupation and the political obstacles to crafting a more peaceful and sustainable future are some of the fruits of these bipartisan efforts to challenge and weaken the rules-based order.

Today, far from being a leader of the international rules-based system, the United States is an outlier. It has failed to sign or ratify about fifty important and widely accepted multilateral treaties on everything from children’s rights to arms control. Its unilateral sanctions against Cuba, Iran, Venezuela and other countries are themselves violations of international law, and the new Biden administration has shamefully failed to lift these illegal sanctions, ignoring UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ request to suspend such unilateral coercive measures during the pandemic.

So is Blinken’s “rules-based order” a recommitment to President Roosevelt’s “permanent structure of peace,” or is it in fact a renunciation of the United Nations Charter and its purpose, which is peace and security for all of humanity?

In the light of Biden’s first few months in power, it appears to be the latter. Instead of designing a foreign policy based on the principles and rules of the UN Charter and the goal of a peaceful world, Biden’s policy seems to start from the premises of a $753 billion U.S. military budget, 800 overseas military bases, endless U.S. and allied wars and massacres, and massive weapons sales to repressive regimes. Then it works backward to formulate a policy framework to somehow justify all that.

Once a “war on terror” that only fuels terrorism, violence and chaos was no longer politically viable, hawkish U.S. leaders—both Republicans and Democrats—seem to have concluded that a return to the Cold War was the only plausible way to perpetuate America’s militarist foreign policy and multi-trillion-dollar war machine.

But that raised a new set of contradictions. For 40 years, the Cold War was justified by the ideological struggle between the capitalist and communist economic systems. But the U.S.S.R. disintegrated and Russia is now a capitalist country. China is still governed by its Communist Party, but has a managed, mixed economy similar to that of Western Europe in the years after the Second World War – an efficient and dynamic economic system that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in both cases.

So how can these U.S. leaders justify their renewed Cold War? They have floated the notion of a struggle between “democracy and authoritarianism.” But the United States supports too many horrific dictatorships around the world, especially in the Middle East, to make that a convincing pretext for a Cold War against Russia and China.

A U.S. “global war on authoritarianism” would require confronting repressive U.S. allies like Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, not arming them to the teeth and shielding them from international accountability as the United States is doing.

So, just as American and British leaders settled on non-existent “WMD”s as the pretext they could all agree on to justify their war on Iraq, the U.S. and its allies have settled on defending a vague, undefined “rules-based order” as the justification for their revived Cold War on Russia and China.

But like the emperor’s new clothes in the fable and the WMDs in Iraq, the United States’ new rules don’t really exist. They are just its latest smokescreen for a foreign policy based on illegal threats and uses of force and a doctrine of “might makes right.”

We challenge President Biden and Secretary Blinken to prove us wrong by actually joining the rules-based order of the UN Charter and international law. That would require a genuine commitment to a very different and more peaceful future, with appropriate contrition and accountability for the United States’ and its allies’ systematic violations of the UN Charter and international law, and the countless violent deaths, ruined societies and widespread chaos they have caused.

*

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.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Featured image is from Pinterest

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

I lived in Gaza from 2011, through the attack of 2014, and for one year after. I am not Palestinian, but some of the things I remember will be relevant in the coming months.

The bombardment was shattering. There followed a winter of soul-destroying neglect by donor states. Tens of thousands of Gazans remained in UNRWA shelter-schools.  Many more families shivered in remnant housing, on tilting slabs of concrete, in rooms with three walls and a blanket hung in lieu of a fourth, persistently cold and wet.

Recovery? America sold Israel $1.9 billion in replacement arms. The World Bank assessed Israel’s bomb damage to Gaza at $4.4 billion.  Of the $5.4 billion that donors pledged to reconstruct Gaza, in that critical first year the International Crisis Group calculated that the donor states actually came up with a paltry $340 million.

Aid is an insufficient place-holding response, but it is needed now.  This time, it cannot happen the same way.

In the workaday business of delivering the material needed to rebuild, the blockade allows Israel to choose the chokepoints of reconstruction.  Having bombed, Israel is allowed to carry on the assault by slow strangulation.

In 2014 they were allowed to impose a farcical compliance regime for the cement that was needed to rebuild the 18,000 homes they had damaged or destroyed.  UNRWA engineers were required to waste their days sitting next to concrete mixers.  International staff spent hours of each day driving between them to count – no shit, count – sacks of cement.  100,000 people were homeless and cement was permitted to reach them like grains of sand through an eye-dropper.  Not a single home was built through the remainder of 2014.

Perhaps this time Israel will choke off the supplies needed to re-pave the tens of thousands of square meters of road they have blown up; it will be something.  We have watched an attack on the veins and arteries of modern civilian infrastructure.  If the crossings regime is allowed to remain in place, we will be leaving the Israeli government to decide unilaterally whether Gazans will be permitted to live in the modern world.

This time, it simply cannot go the same way.

I was as frightened by the way the bombs changed us.  1200 hours of incessant terror and violence had re-wired our brains. The lassitude, the thousand-yard-stares, the woman from Rafah who clutched her midsection as if she could hold her twelve lost relatives in place.  I and my team of Gazan over-achievers struggled to finish any task on time.  Eight months later I found research on the anterior midcingulate cortex to help us understand how bombardment can alter the finishing brain. Every step seemed to be so steeply uphill.

Even more un-Gazan, we often struggled alone.  The very essence of Gaza is its density.  In its urban streets you know the passersby with smalltown frequency.  Gaza coheres with the intentional social glue of resistance.  After the bombardment, people seemed to float alone with their memories. The human heart returns to the scene of unresolved trauma, and our hearts were stuck in many different rooms.

The good people who listened and cared as professionals or as neighbours, were themselves suffering.  Parents compared notes through those months: how many of their children still slept beneath their beds in case the planes came back?  Over everyone’s heads hung the knowledge that there had been no substantial agreement beyond a cessation of firing.

I felt I was watching people reach for each other, and for meaning. Young Gazan men stood for hours, waving Palestinian flags over the rubble of Shuja’iyya while residents crawled over the rubble landscape in search of something familiar. Bright pennants sprouted across the bombed-out windows of apartments.

Not everyone found meaning. Suicide and predatory behaviour also rose. Hamas cracked down on dissent violently, while more-radical groups made inroads among young people who may have felt they had no other agency.

The aftermath was all these things at once. When I left Gaza in late 2015, it felt poised between resuming and despairing. Since then, it has gone on for another six years.  This bombardment picked up where the last one left off: in 2014 the destruction of apartment blocks was Israel’s final act and this time, it was their opening salvo.

This time, we cannot let it go the same way.

I had to learn to harness my sadness and outrage.  If we are to make it different this time, we need to do that.

In the first weeks after the 2014 bombing, I could only rage at the blockade wall but the wall stood, undented. I didn’t know how to look further, and as a Jew I was afraid to look further. I began to read books on military accountability. Those principles helped to focus my gaze beyond the wall.

Now as then, we have witnessed a barbaric action, comprised of choices.  Individuals are accountable for each of those choices.  It is neither partisan nor, must I say it, antisemitic to call them to account ceaselessly.  Accountability takes the side of civilian protection.  If one belligerent causes the overwhelming share of the wrongful death and damage, then that party has duly earned the overwhelming share of our attention.  Call them out.

Loathe the wall but rage wisely at its structural supports: expedient politics, the arms trade that profits by field-testing its weapons on Gazan Palestinians, any denial of the simple equality of our lives, the hand-wringing or indifference of the bystander.  Those hold the wall up.

Prior to this violence, Donald Trump had been busily normalising Israel’s diplomatic relations – good-bye to all that.  Normalise BDS, not the occupation of Palestine.  Apply sustained, peaceful, external pressure as you would to any other wound.  BDS firmly rejects an apartheid arrangement of power, until all people enjoy equality and self-determination.

See and reject the single system that classifies life ethnically between the river and the sea.  When you recognise a single systemic wrong, you have recognised Palestinians as a single nation.

A statement by scholars of genocide, mass violence and human rights last week described the danger: “[T]he violence now has intensified systemic racism and exclusionary and violent nationalism in Israel—a well-known pattern in many cases of state violence—posing a serious risk for continued persecution and violence against Palestinians, exacerbated by the political instability in Israel in the last few months.”

In other words, this isn’t over and we will not let it go the same way.

The risk to Gaza now is the risk of our disengagement before we have brought down the walls.  That is the task; nothing less.  This time, Gaza must go free.

*

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.

Marilyn Garson, Alternative Jewish Voices

Featured image: Photo Marilyn Garson, from a reclaimed rubble sea wall, Gaza City

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Israeli air force pilots’ bombing and flattening of Palestinian residential towers in the besieged Gaza Strip in its military offensive earlier this month was a way to vent their frustration for failing to stop Palestinian armed factions from firing rockets into Israeli towns, according to an Israeli TV report.

A number of Israeli pilots spoke anonymously to Israel’s Channel 12 last week about their experience flying warplanes over the Palestinian enclave during an 11-day military campaign that ended with a ceasefire on Thursday evening.

In total, Israeli air strikes killed 248 Palestinians in Gaza, including 66 children, between 10 and 21 May, and wounded 1,948 others, the Gaza health ministry has reported.

Nine high-rise buildings were flattened to the ground by Israeli air strikes, including al-Jalaa tower, which housed the offices of numerous media production companies and news agencies, including the Associated Press, Al-Jazeera and Middle East Eye, drawing condemnation from media and human rights organisations.

“I went on a mission to carry out air strikes with a feeling that destroying the towers is a way to vent frustration over what is happening to us and over the success of the groups in Gaza,” one Israeli pilot told Channel 12.

The pilot, identified as Major D in the report, added:

“We failed to stop the rocket fire and to harm the leadership of these groups, so we destroyed the towers.”

Israel has said that Palestinian armed factions in the Gaza Strip had launched almost 4,000 rockets, which killed 12 people and injured hundreds in Israel, before a ceasefire was reached at 2am local time on Friday.

The Egyptian-brokered ceasefire was declared between Israel and Palestinian factions in the Gaza Strip, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

*

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: Building housing the offices of Associated Press and other media collapses after Israeli airstrike, Gaza City, May 15, 2021. (Source: Indian Punchline)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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

Leon Panetta, once director of CIA, explained bluntly that the agency influenced foreign media outlets ahead of elections in order to “change attitudes within the country.” The method was to “acquire media within a country or within a region that could very well be used for being able to deliver a specific message or work to influence those that may own elements of the media to be able to cooperate, work with you in delivering that message.” The CIA has been running such ops to influence foreign elections continuously since the end of WWII.

The goal is to control information as a tool of influence. Sometimes the control is very direct, operating the media outlet yourself. The problem is this is easily exposed, destroying credibility.

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

Other techniques include exclusive true information mixed with disinformation to establish credibility, using official sources like embassy spokesmen “inadvertently” confirm sub details, and covert funding of research and side gigs to promote academics and experts who can discredit counter-narratives.

From the end of WWII to the Church Committee in 1976, this was all dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Of course the U.S. would not use the CIA to influence elections, especially in fellow democracies. Except it did. Real-time reporting on intelligence is by nature based on limited information, albeit marked with the unambiguous fingerprints of established tradecraft. Always give time a chance to explain.

Through Operation Mockingbird the CIA ran over 400 American journalists as direct assets. Almost none have ever discussed their work publicly. Journalists performed these tasks for the CIA with the consent of America’s leading news organizations. The New York Times alone willingly provided cover for ten CIA officers over decades and kept quiet about it.

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

The US Debate on Israel/Palestine Is Changing

May 25th, 2021 by James J. Zogby

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In the 45 years since launching the Palestine Human Rights Campaign, I’ve witnessed more tragic wars than I can care to count and defended Palestinians against more heinous crimes than I can bear to list. During all this time, we’ve had American supporters who have embraced the cause of Palestinian rights and supported our calls for justice.  But never have I witnessed the sea ​of change in opinion and its impact on the policy debate that is now taking place.

Five decades ago, there were a handful of members of Congress who would courageously speak out and there were some Christian churches, peace and civil rights leaders, and small progressive Jewish groups who would endorse our appeals for Palestinian human rights. For their efforts, they, like us, were subjected to intimidation seeking to silence their voices or punish their advocacy.

Change began with the first Intifada​, as national television broadcast Israeli troops firing on stone-throwing Palestinian youth, ​and the horror that greeted Yitzhak Rabin’s orders to his soldiers to break the bones of the young protesters. Building on this shifting opinion, Jesse Jackson elevated the issue of justice for Palestinians during his 1988 presidential campaign. That year, we succeeded in having the issue debated, for the first time, from the podium of the Democratic convention.

After the Madrid Peace Conference and the Oslo Accords, there was another observable shift in US opinion. On closer examination, however, the change was largely on the Democratic side. President Bill Clinton and the Democrats backed the “Oslo process”, while Republicans, whose party had increasingly come under the influence of the right-wing Christians and Reagan-era neo-conservatives, embraced a hardline pro-Israel stance. Since then, this partisan divide has continued to widen.

As a review of current polling makes clear, this partisan split increasingly masks America’s very real demographic divide on a range of domestic and foreign policyconcerns. On the Democratic side, the largest component group of voters are Blacks, Latinos, Asian-American, millennials and college-educated women. While on the Republican side​, over 40 per cent of their voters are White, older, less than college-educated ​or “born again” Christians Their respective views on Israel/Palestine are mirror images of one another.

Polls now show that the majority of Democratic voters hold deeply unfavourable views of Benjamin Netanyahu, oppose many Israeli policies, and favour conditioning US aid to Israel based on their treatment of Palestinians. Not only have attitudes changed, but progressive Jewish groups and organised Arab Americans have been empowered by this new political environment and have been engaging their elected officials. This has emboldened members of Congress to speak out. In response to both Israel’s recent policies in Jerusalem and the bombardment of Gaza, this split is having an impact in Congress.

The result: For the first time in thirty years​, a dozen members took to floor of Congress to denounce Israeli efforts to evict Palestinians from their Jerusalem homes and the killings of civilians in Gaza; more than one-half of the Democratic Senate caucus has called for an immediate Israel-Hamas ceasefire; and progressives in the House are calling on the president to stop a proposed US arms’ sale to Israel. Also noteworthy has been the muted responses of normally pro-Israel Democratic Senators and Representatives. They know where their base voters are on this issue and they, therefore, are treading carefully.

The US press has given extensive coverage to this development. I was so proud to see a New York Times front page story open with the sentence “In 1988, when James Zogby…pushed Democrats to include mention of Palestinian sovereignty in their platform they responded with a clear warning… ‘If the P-word is even in the platform, all hell will break loose.’” The article goes on to note how the issue we raised and lost back then, is now centre stage in the policy debate.

That’s the good news. More sobering is the fact, as I noted in the same story​, “The base of the party is in a very different place than where the party establishment is.” We haven’t won this policy debate, not by a long shot. But what’s new and important is that we’re forcing a debate. And that’s the first step on the road to change.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Elijah J Magnier

An Israeli Voice Supporting Palestinians

May 25th, 2021 by Shahbazz Afzal

All Global Research articles 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 first time I met Tuvaal I was just a wee young kid.  She was working in Scotland and was attending the same left-wing socialist gathering my father and I were at. We remain in touch.

She is Jewish Israeli and a vocal socialist activist in Israel and a member of the Israel-Palestine section of International Socialist Alternative.  She fights for various causes, including Palestinian human rights – and when I spoke to her recently, she described her anger and frustration with the recent events inside Israel and the illegally occupied territories.  During our lengthy conversation she explained her understanding of how the sequence of events unfolded that led to the increased brutal violence against Palestinians in the past few weeks.

Before the vicious Israeli attacks against Palestinians, Tuvaal talked positively about the many jointly held demonstrations that had taken place, between Israelis and Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah district in Jerusalem, against the planned evictions of Palestinian residents.

She pointed out that racist laws, for instance, allow a right-wing NGO to buy the homes of Palestinian families, kick families out and let Jewish settlers move in their place.

“I view these laws as enshrining ethnic cleansing,” she asserted.

“For the past few weeks, Palestinian youth have been heroically defying the Israeli regime and its armed forces; first, protesting against provocations by Israeli police in Al-Aqsa mosque, protests which despite being answered with brutal oppression, won victories against the police.  Then, the protesters moved to demonstrate against the evictions in Sheikh Jarrah.   Attacked by both Israeli armed forces and the neo-fascist settlers, the protests persisted, in turn, inspiring many more protests around the world.”

During a recent demonstration called, ‘Stop the expulsions in Sheikh Jarrah – oppose the war on Gaza’, saw more than 200 Jewish and Palestinian protestors, peacefully marching together around the neighbourhood, meeting families who were about to be evicted.  They chanted in Arabic and Hebrew, “Settler thieves, leave our homes!” and “No to Israeli armed forces and settlers in Sheikh Jarrah – No to the occupation”.

Tuvaal described the feeling of unity and solidarity – and then came the brutal and vicious Israeli response.

“Israeli armed forces decided to violently disperse the peaceful protesters – a deliberate act of provocation.  While the settlers stirred up trouble, the armed forces attacked Palestinian youths, and fired stun grenades and water cannons targeting the protesters. The use of stun grenades caused many injuries.”

After the violent dispersion, Tuvaal confirmed Israeli settlers “had fired live ammo at the Palestinian residents’ homes.”  At this point in our conversation Tuvaal wanted to make clear that she condemned any attack on civilians, whether perpetrated by Israelis or Palestinians.

When I asked about the current mood of Israelis, Tuvaal admitted the Palestinian response to Israeli brutality had stirred up a nationalist mood amongst Jewish Israelis – and then went onto say that this isn’t very difficult to do considering the entrenched right-wing political landscape of the nation and the lack of a strong left voice.

She described how far right forces, including settlers in mixed Palestinian and Jewish cities and neighbourhoods, as well as organised settler forces from the settlements in the West Bank, have exploited the current events – using it as an opportunity to increase violent attacks on Palestinians and to undermine the coexistence of Jews and Palestinians in these cities. Specific incidents of brutal violence have been witnessed.  The horrific shooting of a young man in Lyd by settlers.  The horrifying lynching of a taxi driver in Bat Yam, who was beaten for an hour by a mob – and the police nowhere in sight.

“The Israeli police are also responsible for causing provocation and unrest in Palestinian cities and villages.  They violently attack protestors against the war on Gaza.  Whilst they defend the violent actions of settlers, they carry out their own actions of violence against Palestinians.”

Although many Israelis support the actions against Palestinians in Gaza, many in the Jewish community are opposed to the “racist attacks” against Palestinians in ’48 territories’.

“Jewish bus drivers have been escorting Palestinian colleagues to their homes and ensuring their safety. Unions have strongly condemned the violence against Palestinians and have issued messages published across many social media platforms of solidarity between Palestinians and Jews.  Our task on the socialist left is to broaden the message: from solidarity with neighbours and colleagues, to solidarity against the brutal attacks on Gaza and against the bloodshed instigated by the Israeli regime.”

Although the current ceasefire has been welcomed by all parties, Tuvaal stresses that Jewish activists, although small in number, remain firmly opposed to the Israeli regime and its brutal actions and policies targeting Palestinians.  They are trying to expose the regime and highlight the ongoing crimes it is committing.  The challenges are there.  The Israeli media, for instance, “is firmly aligned to the Israeli leadership and army propaganda.”

“The ceasefire would not have been achieved without the fearless, determined mass movement of Palestinians, including the inspiring one-day general strike held a couple of days before it was announced.  It also wouldn’t have been achieved without the incredible solidarity movement, with mass demonstrations held all over the world.  However, the ceasefire does not mark the end of the Israeli state’s aggression towards Palestinian people – the occupation, siege, ethnic cleansing, house demolitions, and poverty.  But it also does not mark the end of rebellion against these oppressions.  The mass movement continues on Friday, after the ceasefire was announced, mass demonstrations were held in Al-Aqsa, in the West Bank, and in Umm El-Fahm (inside 48 borders).  The evictions in Sheikh Jarrah still loom over the families’ heads – but the weekly protests will continue.  We, socialists – Palestinian and Jewish – who oppose the occupation, will continue fighting against it, wherever and however we can.”

*

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.

Shahbazz Afzal is an independent writer and political activist.

Featured image is from the authors

Spike Protein Damages Vascular Cells

May 25th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Researchers used a pseudo virus made of a cell surrounded by spike proteins but without a viral component to demonstrate the spike proteins can damage human cells and alter mitochondrial function

Many of the long-haul symptoms attributed to COVID-19 may be the result of endothelial damage that triggers poor flow through the capillaries, inflammation and tissue hypoxia

Data show up to 10% of all people who contracted COVID experienced long-haul symptoms, but none of Dr. Vladimir Zelenko’s patients who were treated within the first five days of infection developed persistent symptoms

As researchers are seeking another target for future vaccine development, French authorities announced five people developed myocarditis after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. Twelve VAERS reports in the U.S. listed myocarditis

*

During 2020, many people learned more about coronaviruses, and specifically the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. Pictures of the spiked virus have been plastered across the news media.

The image is reminiscent of a chain mace, or flail. This was a medieval weapon with a spiked steel ball at the end of a chain or leather strap. The image may be frightening. It turns out researchers believe the spikes are responsible for significant vascular damage leading to severe disease.1

Most people will be infected at least one time in their lives by some type of coronavirus. If the COVID-19 pandemic is the first time you’ve heard about coronaviruses, you should know the first one was discovered in chickens in 1930.2 A few decades later the first human coronavirus was identified.3

Currently, scientists have identified four types of coronaviruses that are endemic and can cause up to 15% of common colds.4 Interestingly, if all coronaviruses have originated in the wild, the rate at which the virus is mutating has accelerated dramatically in 20 years.

In the last two decades, three new coronaviruses have emerged: SARS in November 2002;5 MERS in September 2012;6 and SARS-CoV-2 in December 2019.7 The symptoms of COVID-19 from an infection with SARS-CoV-2 can vary to a great extent.

Some people carrying the virus have had no symptoms. Others report fever, headache, body aches, dry cough, loss of appetite and loss of smell.8 In others, more severe symptoms can develop that affect the respiratory tract and lead to pneumonia.

Approximately 36% of individuals have experienced gastrointestinal symptoms or neurological symptoms, either with or without respiratory symptoms.9 A recent paper published in Circulation Research10 revealed it is the spiked proteins on the virus that play a key role in your symptoms.

Spiked SARS-CoV-2 Damages More Than Your Lungs

A team of researchers including scientists from the University of California San Diego evaluated the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in animals. The researchers were not surprised by the clinical findings, but the data revealed a detailed explanation of how the spike (S) protein triggers damage to the vascular system.11

The researchers created a pseudo virus, or cell surrounded by the spike proteins that did not contain a virus.12 Using an animal model, the researchers administered the pseudo virus into the lungs and found the virus was not necessary to create damage. Instead, the spike protein was enough to cause inflammation.

The experiment was then replicated in the lab using cell cultures. The team exposed healthy endothelial cells that line your arteries to the spiked pseudo virus. Past studies had demonstrated that exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus elicited damage to the cells by binding to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2).

However, the team found the cells responded in a similar way when exposed to the pseudo virus. When the S protein attached to the ACE2 receptor it disrupted signaling to the mitochondria and caused damage and fragmentation. The alterations in mitochondrial function were confirmed as part of the inhibition of ACE2 signaling in the lab.

The results also revealed that the virus could induce endothelial cell inflammation and endotheliitis. The protein reportedly decreased ACE2 levels and impaired nitric oxide bioavailability.13 Co-senior author of the study, Uri Manor, explained in a press release from Salk Institute:14

“If you remove the replicating capabilities of the virus, it still has a major damaging effect on the vascular cells, simply by virtue of its ability to bind to this ACE2 receptor, the S protein receptor, now famous thanks to COVID. Further studies with mutant spike proteins will also provide new insight towards the infectivity and severity of mutant SARS-CoV-2 viruses.”

Long Haul Symptoms May Be Related to Vascular Damage

Some of the symptoms from COVID-19 that last weeks or months for some people may be the result of vascular damage. People who have had these symptoms have been given the name “long haulers.”15

In theory, they have recovered from the worst symptoms of the illness and test negative. Yet, they continue to have symptoms without an active infection. According to a paper in JAMA,16approximately 10% of people who have had COVID-19 may experience long haul symptoms.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention17 report that a combination of the following symptoms without an active COVID infection can appear weeks after the infection and last for months. Symptoms may worsen after physical or mental activity.

  • Brain fog described as difficulty thinking or concentrating
  • Chest pain
  • Cough and difficulty breathing
  • Depression or anxiety
  • Dizziness when first standing
  • Fast beating heart or pounding heart
  • Fatigue
  • Fever
  • Headache
  • Joint or muscle pain
  • Loss of smell or taste
  • Shortness of breath

The predominant pathophysiology of COVID-19 includes endothelial damage and microvascular injury, stimulation of hyperinflammation and hypercoagulability.18 A recent review in Physiological Reports19 examined how the capillary damage and inflammation from endotheliitis triggered by COVID-19 could contribute to the persistent symptoms by interfering with tissue oxygenation.

The combined effects of capillary damage in multiple key organs may accelerate hypoxia related inflammation and lead to long haul symptoms. Although exercise temporarily worsens long haul symptoms and some have rejected high-intensity interval training (HIIT) as an option, one paper published in Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine from Denmark suggests the opposite.20

The authors of this study argue that the pathophysiology of COVID-19 may be overcome by the physiological effects of HIIT and it should be considered as one of the rehabilitation choices to potentially reverse these symptoms. They propose that exercise could increase viral clearance and modulate TNF-alpha and interleukin-1 beta signaling.

This may in turn reduce vascular inflammation. They acknowledge that HIIT is the most controversial type of exercise intervention to be prescribed after COVID-19, due to the risk of sudden cardiac arrest secondary to cardiovascular damage.

Several experts21,22 recommend even those accustomed to high intensity exercise should first complete a cardiovascular exam and approach their return to physical activity gradually. They cite a small retrospective study of 28 people with a history of COVID-19 in which the researchers concluded that “comprehensive cardiopulmonary rehabilitation after COVID-19 is safe, feasible, and effective.”23

Early Treatment May Reduce the Number of Long Haulers

In my interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko in March 2021, we discussed the treatment of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine. At that point, Zelenko had treated 3,000 patients with symptoms of COVID-19 and only three of his high-risk patients had subsequently succumbed to the disease.

While the focus of the interview was on treatment protocols and the use of the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, Zelenko shared an interesting statistic about his protocol. In the early months of COVID-19, Zelenko decided to treat his high-risk patients as early as possible, without waiting for severe symptoms. This turned out to be one key to his significant success.

Without waiting for test results that often took five days, by which time high-risk patients were exhibiting more severe symptoms, he started treatment immediately. His understanding of the mechanism behind hydroxychloroquine and zinc led to using the combination alongside azithromycin, to prevent bacterial pneumonia and other bacterial infections common with COVID.

What is interesting are the statistics for Zelenko’s patients with long haul symptoms. As I’ve discussed, approximately 10% of the population that is infected with COVID-19 will go on to experience persistent symptoms.24 However, Zelenko has treated 3,000 patients and none who received treatment within the first five days went on to develop long-haul symptoms.

While he has had patients with persistent symptoms from COVID-19, they sought medical care after the first five days of symptoms, which meant the inflammatory process had advanced. From his experience, and the experience of the patients he treated, early intervention with the protocol nearly eliminated the risk of persistent symptoms.

Researchers Find Another Vaccine Target

During vaccine development, researchers and pharmaceutical companies have focused on the spike protein that surrounds the virus. It appears that this is how the virus enters the cells and it seemed reasonable if the virus could not replicate inside the cells, the infection could be stopped.

However, as has been discovered, the virus has more than just a single spike protein.25 There are four proteins that form the structure surrounding the RNA. There is an envelope (E), a membrane (M) and a nucleocapsid (N), in addition to the spike (S). Your immune system recognizes all four of these proteins. Researchers have discovered humans make more antibodies to the N protein than the S protein.26

However, it seemed counterintuitive to address the N protein since this is found inside the structure with the viral RNA. Therefore, any antibodies your body makes against the N protein will not block the virus from entering the cells.27 New information has revealed that once the N protein antibodies get inside the cell they are recognized by an antibiotic receptor, TRIM21.

This antibody receptor shreds the N protein, which then reaches the surface of an infected cell. Your body’s T cells recognize the fragments and kill the cell along with any virus. This has suggested to researchers that inducing N protein antibodies may be another way of stimulating the immune response against SARS-CoV-2.

Another benefit of focusing on the N protein is that it has a lower mutation rate.28 In other words, as the virus mutates in the wild the current vaccine may no longer have any effectiveness against it, in much the same way that the flu vaccine must be altered each year to address influenza variants. The sequence in the N protein is more stable, so researchers postulate that a vaccine may be effective for a longer period.

List of Current Vaccine Side Effects Is Growing

Early in May 2021, reports from France indicated five cases of myocarditis were found in those who had taken the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine. Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle that can have lifelong effects as it weakens the muscle and creates scar tissue.29

The national medicines safety agency (ANSM) released their weekly vaccine update, saying “five cases have been declared in France.”30 The agency didn’t feel there was enough information to conclude the vaccine had played a role but would continue to monitor reports.

Over 13.5 million doses of COVID vaccines have been administered in France since April 22, 2021. The ANSM reports 16,030 adverse events from those who had been vaccinated. Israel has also reported several cases of myocarditis after people receive their second dose.

A review of the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows 12 reports of myocarditis were recorded in the U.S. by April 30, 2021. According to Our World in Data,31 by April 30, 2021, 30.32% of the population in the U.S. had been fully vaccinated. VAERS also showed there were 157,277 adverse events reported by April 30, 2021.32

These numbers are likely far lower than the actual number of people who have experienced adverse events from the vaccines. Research data33 show health care providers identify and report vaccine adverse events in woefully low numbers. In fact, the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine was recently paused to teach doctors how to report vaccine injuries.34 The pause has since been lifted in the U.S.

It is crucial to report a vaccine injury or side effect to VAERS, as the data are essential in helping individuals, doctors and researchers make informed decisions. You can make your own report online or using a PDF by going to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.35 You’ll find more information about adverse events and how vaccines affect your health at the National Vaccine Information Center.36

*

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

Notes

1, 11, 14 Salk, April 30, 2021

2 Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 1931;78:413

3 The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 2005;24(11)

4 The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 2005;24(11) para 2 under figure 1

5 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, SARS Timeline

6 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome

7 World Health Organization, April 27, 2020

8 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Symptoms of COVID-19

9 Inflammatory Bowel Disease, 2020; doi.org/10.1093/ibd/iza131

10, 12, 13 Circulation Research, 2021; 128:1326

15, 16, 24 JAMA, 2020;324(14)

17 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Post COVID Conditions

18 Nature Medicine, 2021;27:601 Pathophysiology

19 Physiological Reports, 2021; doi.org/10.14814/phy2.14726

20 Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2021; doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.643626

21 European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 2020;27(12)

22 Netherlands Heart Journal, 2020;28:391

23 American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2020;99(10)

25 C&EN, April 1, 2020, Image of the spiked virus

26 Technology Networks, September 10, 2020

27, 28 Discover, January 4, 2021

29 Myocarditis Foundation

30 Brussels Times, May 1, 2021

31 Our World in Data, Coronavirus Vaccinations

32 OpenVAERS, Covid Data

33 Vaccine, 2013;31(24)

34 Twitter, Good Morning America, April 14, 2021

35 VAERS

36 National Vaccine Information Center

Featured image is from Health Impact 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.

***

UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock suggested critics of the vaccine passport policy were “crazies” after he retweeted a post which disparaged those who have security and privacy concerns about the program.

Mail on Sunday commentator Dan Hodges urged people to “ignore the crazies” as he effusively praised the NHS tracking app for being a centralized surveillance hub.

“OK, ignore the crazies. Just downloaded the NHS App,” tweeted Hodges. “It’s amazing! You take a photo of your drivers licence, do a cool face scan, and everything’s there. Covid records, medical records, everything. I now want Covid passports just so I can use it…”’

Hodges subsequently suggested that the app was a “fantastic” way of avoiding anti-vaxxers.

His tweet was subsequently retweeted by Matt Hancock, who over the last year has become the face of the UK’s coronavirus response.

“Why did @MattHancock RT a contrarian, ratioed tweet disparaging “crazies”?” asked Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo.

“He shows profound disrespect to the MPs, many from his own party, who reject Covid passes & want a serious debate; & the anti-ID British public. His attitude will fall down on him like a ton of bricks,” she added.

As we document in the video below, attempts have been made to discredit opposition to the vaccine passport by demonizing critics as anti-vaxxer extremists.

However, the program would serve to introduce a Chinese Communist-style social credit score system with potentially horrendous implications for basic liberties and freedoms.

The British government lied for months in claiming that no vaccine passport was being developed for domestic events, despite that being the plan all along.

*

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 Flickr

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is investigating reports that some teenagers and young adults vaccinated against COVID may have experienced heart problems, according to the agency’s advisory group.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in a May 17 statement said, reports of myocarditis to date seemed to occur predominantly in adolescents and young adults, more often in males than females, more often following the second dose and typically within four days after vaccination. Most cases appeared to be “mild” and follow-up is ongoing.

Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle that can lead to cardiac arrhythmia and death. According to researchers at the National Organization for Rare Disorders, myocarditis can result from infections, but “more commonly the myocarditis is a result of the body’s immune reaction to the initial heart damage.”

The CDC’s Vaccine Safety Technical (VaST) Work Group has reviewed post-authorization COVID vaccine safety data on a weekly basis since the first COVID vaccine was rolled out in the U.S. in December 2020. At the time, vaccine recipients had to be 18 years old or older.

On May 13, the CDC signed off on expanded use of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine for ages 12- to 15-year-olds. The Pfizer vaccine so far is the only COVID vaccine to have received EUA for young teens.

The VaST session on May 17 included several presentations on myocarditis following mRNA vaccines Pfizer and Moderna.The data came from the U.S. Department of Defense, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and Vaccine Safety Datalink.

There were also brief updates from the Veteran’s Administration and the CDC’s Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project groups about plans for future investigation of myocarditis.

The CDC said its monitoring systems had not found more cases of myocarditis than would be expected in the population, but members of the committee on vaccinations said healthcare providers should be made aware of the reports of the “potential adverse event.”

“We look forward to seeing more data about these cases, so we can better understand if they are related to the vaccine or if they are coincidental,” said Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’s Committee on Infectious Diseases.

“Meanwhile, it’s important for pediatricians and other clinicians to report any health concerns that arise after vaccination,” Maldonado said.

As The Defender reported, details leaked from an Israeli Health Ministry report in April raised concerns among experts about a possible link between the Pfizer’s COVID vaccine and myocarditis.

The preliminary report by a committee tasked with monitoring vaccine side effects found 62 cases of myocarditis, including two deaths, in people who received the Pfizer vaccine. Fifty-six of the cases occurred after the second dose of the vaccine, and 55 cases occurred in men — most between the ages of 18 and 30.

Israel’s pandemic response coordinator, Nachman Ash, confirmed “tens of incidents” of myocarditis occurred in vaccinated people, primarily after the second dose, but emphasized the health ministry had yet to draw any conclusions.

Israeli researchers presented their findings to the Israeli Health Ministry Director-General, Pfizer, the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

EU regulators in May 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.

Because Moderna and Pfizer use the same mRNA technology for their vaccines, European regulators asked Moderna to monitor for similar cases of heart inflammation.

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.

A search in VAERS revealed 288 cases of pericarditis and myocarditis reported in the U.S following COVID vaccination between Dec.14, 2020 and May 14. Of the 288 cases reported, 158 cases were attributed to Pfizer, 110 cases to Moderna and 19 cases to Johnson & Johnson’s COVID vaccine.

*

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

How Texas Killed COVID

May 25th, 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.

***

In March, Governor Greg Abbott announced that Texas would open for business 100 percent without a statewide mask mandate. The pro-lockdown “experts” were shocked. If a state as big as Texas joined Florida and succeeded in thumbing its nose at “the science” – which told us that for the first time in history healthy people should be forced to stay in their houses and wear oxygen-restricting face masks – then the lockdown narrative would begin falling apart.

President Biden famously attacked the decision as “Neanderthal thinking.” Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa warned that, with this order, Abbott would “kill Texans.” Incoming CDC Director Rochelle Walensky tearfully told us about her feelings of “impending doom.”

When the poster child for Covid lockdowns Dr. Fauci was asked several weeks later why cases and deaths continued to evaporate in Texas, he answered simply, “I’m not sure.” That moment may have been a look at the man behind the proverbial curtain, who projected his power so confidently until confronted with reality.

Now a new study appearing as a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, highlighted recently in Reason Magazine, has found “no evidence that the reopening affected the rate of new COVID-19 cases in the five-week period following the reopening. …State-level COVID-19 mortality rates were unaffected by the March 10 reopening.”

In other words, not only did the doom and gloom predicted by the lockdown fanatics fail to materialize, but the steady, seasonal downward trend of the virus toward extinction continued regardless of government action. As we have repeated for a year on the Liberty Report, the virus was going to virus regardless of anything we did about it. And Texas proved it.

However, some very important questions remain to be answered as the Covid panic across the United States is finally starting to recede.

First, will anyone be held responsible for the thousands who died because of the prohibition on safe treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin that have since been shown to be effective against Covid-19? As soon as Donald Trump mentioned that hydroxychloroquine might be effective against the virus, the “experts” circled the wagons. It was banned for use, until it later was quietly un-banned.

The politicization of medicine is anti-science, anti-human, and anti-American. Will those who needlessly died due to this politicization finally get their justice?

Second, though Abbott deserves credit for taking the bold step, shouldn’t he be held accountable for closing the state in the first place? After all, when someone has been punching you in the face and then they stop, do you thank them for letting up or do you ask why they punched you in the first place? Will all the tyrannical rule-by-decree orders across the United States be stricken from the books? Or will they just be allowed to do this again for any reason they choose?

Third, thanks to Senator Rand Paul, we are now all aware of Dr. Fauci’s role in funding gain-of-function research on viruses in China. Will we be able to find out exactly why we are being forced to pay for the mad scientist research into how to create more deadly viruses? Can we opt-out of this funding?

Though Greg Abbott deserves much criticism for shutting Texas down, his re-opening decree effectively ended Covid tyranny across the country. We are thankful for that. Now we must resolve to never let this happen again.

*

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

Global Britain Returns to Rule the Waves

May 25th, 2021 by Jenny Clegg

All Global Research articles 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 HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier strike group is due to set off on its maiden voyage heading towards the South China Sea.

The biggest military deployment in decades, the voyage is symbolic of Britain’s future direction for the next generation — a clear demonstration that Global Britain with its Indo-Pacific tilt is being military-led.

There’s a certain air of imperial vanity about all this — a delusional fantasy singing to the tune of right-wing nationalism.

But there is a hard edge here as Boris Johnson’s return “east of Suez” takes on particular significance in the new scenario of a cold war on China.

The aircraft carrier itself is massive, its flight deck the length of three football pitches.

It is kitted out with state-of-the-art technologies and is carrying 18 F-35 fighter jets — 10 of these are from the United States Air Force.

The group contains three destroyers, again one of which is American, two frigates and a nuclear-powered submarine armed with Tomahawk missiles.

The cost is huge: over £6 billion for two aircraft carriers together, plus £1bn spent so far on the F-35s.

We are supposed to buy 138 in total which makes an additional £13bn — a colossal misallocation of funds much of which were squeezed out from the taxpayers in the name of austerity.

Involving 1,600 personnel altogether, the running costs alone amount to 15 per cent of the military budget or by rough calculation £8bn or £9bn.

The route travels through the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal, the Gulf, round India then up through the Malacca Straits into the South China Sea, passing numbers of trouble spots on the way.

The 28-week voyage will take in 90 port visits in 40 different countries — more than a fifth of the world’s nations — with the aim of rebuilding military and diplomatic relations.

With fighter jets, destroyers and the latest naval technology on display, and Merlin helicopters and drones on board, there’s an arms sales element, and in a further boost to Britain’s military industrial complex, BAE Systems is to assist Japan and South Korea in building fighter jets.

Along the way, the strike group will serve as a focal point for regional joint military exercises.

The military manoeuvre planned in the South China Sea with the US and probably other states, possibly even Japan, will be highly provocative and dangerous.

The area is a tinderbox: as warships and coastguard vessels mill around in the waters, there is a high risk of accident which could rapidly escalate into war — in which case, we could find ourselves in armed conflict with another nuclear-armed state.

Global Britain has been in the pipeline for years: the decision to build the aircraft carriers, just like the renewal of Trident, came from the same place as the command to launch the war on Iraq, namely, the Tony Blair government.

Following Brexit, Johnson promised Britain’s return to its rightful place as an independent power, leading the world.

As can be seen from the involvement of US personnel and military hardware to boost the QE’s firepower, nothing could be further from the truth.

Now the Tories’ Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy identifies China is a systemic competitor “challenging our prosperity, security and values.”

The Indo-Pacific tilt follows the US plans for an “Asian Nato” initiated by Donald Trump in the form of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue — the Quad — involving Australia, US, Japan and India.

This loose grouping was intended to draw India into a closer relationship with the US, hence the term Indo-Pacific.

Quad diplomacy has now been made a priority by Joe Biden who, within his first 100 days in office, upgraded the dialogue into a heads of state meeting.

At the same time, his success in involving Japan in military drills indicates a hardening of the Quad agenda.

Biden so far has not changed Trump’s key policies on China: not on tariffs, not on restrictions on Chinese tech companies, holding to the view of China as the “greatest strategic challenge” to the US.

He has even stepped up the action sending warships and destroyers into the Taiwan Straits and, taking a more ideological approach, he clearly aims to shift international opinion against China as an existential threat to the entire world.

The US Establishment has been taking stock: the unipolar moment has gone; China clearly was able to withstand Trump’s pressure.

Recognising the US can no longer go it alone, hard-line cold warriors are calling on key allies to form a single economic, technological and military bloc — a “summit of democracies” aligned according to America First priorities and sharing the military costs of the agenda — so as to exert enough pressure on China to bring it to heel, subordinate to US leadership.

Biden’s distinctive global China containment strategy is unfolding in a reordering the regions of Asia, looking to finally demolish the cornerstones of their post-war and post-colonial order: in the Middle East, the division between the Gulf states and Israel over Palestine; the principle of non-alignment long held by India; south-east Asia’s military independence, and Japan’s Article 9 of the constitution, known as the Peace Clause, by which it renounced war as a sovereign right.

Claiming “Britain is back” as it travels across Asia — through the Middle East, India, south-east and east Asia, the aircraft carrier group will in reality be delivering the “warlord” agenda of world division.

Global Britain will bolster its military presence in the Middle East to allow the US to focus more on China and seek ways to influence India’s dialogue with China on issues such as Afghanistan, nuclear deterrence, vaccines and so on.

In south-east Asia, the strike group will mark the 50th anniversary of the Five Power Defence Arrangement that Britain has with Singapore, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand, in an exercise designed to shift towards a Nato-style alliance long sought by the US.

And through the renewal of military links, Britain will encourage the Japanese to actively participate overseas in regional naval exercises, breaking the post-war constraints.

The Anglo-Japanese link has historical significance given that it was the alliance with Britain that saw Japan’s emergence an aggressive militarist imperialist state in the early 20th century.

Travelling from the Middle East in a wide semi-circle round China to Japan, the armada is symbolic of Britain’s new role as subcontractor-in-chief of US anti-China foreign and military policy.

How will China react? It should be noted that even the announcement that the Queen Elizabeth would sail through the South China Sea back in February 2019 saw China cancel the visit by the trade secretary at the time.

It seems beyond the wit of the vast majority of Labour MPs to take all this in.

However, what trade unions and the labour movement need to think about is whether, given the precarious state of the economy post-Brexit, we can really afford to run the risk of more serious rupture with the fastest-growing economy in the world.

*

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

Featured image: HMS Queen Elizabeth departs HM Naval Base, Portsmouth (Source: PA)

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Once again, tensions are increasing in bilateral relations between the US and Germany due to Nord Stream 2. The pipeline project is unacceptable for Washington, but it serves European and Russian interests, ensuring energy security and lowering costs. The Biden government is not willing to back down in its decision to prevent the project from being completed and still taking coercive measures, which will be responded by Berlin.

Last week US State Department spokeswoman Jalina Porter said the Biden government will use all available tools to try to prevent Nord Stream 2 from completing. In response, Steffen Kotre, an affiliate of Alternative for Germany (AfD) and a member of the German Parliament’s energy committee, said that Berlin needs to think about countermeasures to be taken if new American sanctions are implemented. These are his words: “It’s common knowledge that the construction of the pipeline is coming to a close. (…) Given the German government is opposing US’ aggressive actions against Nord Stream 2 only rhetorically, there is a growing concern about the project not be completed, so it would be politically correct to initiate countersanctions”.

Kotre says that with the abandonment of coal industry and Merkel’s disdain for nuclear energy, Nord Stream 2 becomes an even more necessary project for German energy security, as the country is currently under strong threat in this sector – in addition to other European nations. The pipeline, Kotre points out, “[will] help to mitigate the consequences of this”. This means that all possible measures to guarantee the completion of the gas pipeline must be taken by Berlin, considering that it is a highly strategic topic.

In addition to Kotre, another member of the AfD, Waldemar Herdt, spoke publicly in favor of measures to protect the pipeline and said that Berlin will not give up on the construction because there are no plausible arguments against the pipeline – only American impositions. In his words: “It is pointless to pressure Germany; Nord Stream 2 will be completed [because] we have no alternative, [and] the Germans will work with the Russians (…) [Nord Stream 2] is not a whim, the German economy needs it (…) It is less expensive, more ecological, more practical than other energy supply options. There are no arguments against this project, but for Washington’s orders: do as you are told”. In addition, praise was given to the way the German government has been handling the case. According to Herdt, when facing the US to ensure the completion of Nord Stream 2, Germany is fighting for its interests for the first time since World War II.

Another reason for the recent unrest in the German Parliament was the statements by Antony Blinken after his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The U.S. secretary of state said that Washington considers it to be in the national interest to waive sanctions on some corporate agents involved in the construction of the pipeline, mainly Nord Stream 2 AG and its CEO, Matthias Warnig. Biden’s promise seems to contradict his own Department’s statement that it will use all “available tools” to prevent the pipeline. However, Biden only listed the main companies that operate in the construction, still maintaining a wide range of agents available for sanctions. For example, on the same occasion, Blinken stated that more than ten vessels involved in the construction will continue to be sanctioned and did not exclude the possibility of further coercive measures against other agents. Apparently, the American strategy will take form in waiving sanctions against the main corporate agents to try to ease tensions with Germany and Russia, but, at the same time, maintaining sanctions against smaller but strategically important agents, undermining the construction of the gas pipeline in a more tenuous and less aggressive way.

In fact, Berlin is defending its interests for the first time in decades – and parliamentary pressure for countersanctions is very important. The possibility of Germany sanctioning the US is a great mark in bilateral relations, as it shows that the German government is increasingly committed to the interests of its people more than to American profits. Obviously, it is too early to say that the demands of parliamentarians will have real effects on the decisions of the federal government – especially considering that they are statements by a right-wing party.

However, considering the firm role played by the government so far, at no time renouncing its interest in the pipeline, it is indeed possible that sanctions will be authorized. It is necessary to point out that parliamentarians made these statements knowing that the main American sanctions would be eased and even so they suggested countermeasures – which indicates that the Germans are not willing to tolerate any sanctions and will not be satisfied with a simple relief for the main companies.

Germany is a nation that is truly allied with the West and committed to liberal values. Berlin has always been willing to cooperate with Washington on all points, but it is not permissible for such cooperation to become submission and abuse. Nord Stream 2 is a German national priority – an economic, social, and environmental necessity that cannot be reduced to international rivalries. Certainly, the US will respond appropriately if there are German sanctions, which could lead to a real trade war – but, apparently, Berlin is really willing to continue to fight for its own interests.

*

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.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is from Asia Times

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Israeli police are now threatening to carry out mass arrests against Palestinian citizens of Israel — arrests intended to punish those who took part in sit-ins and other protests in solidarity with Palestinians living in East Jerusalem and Gaza.

This latest attack on Palestinian rights comes just days after Israeli police once again attacked Palestinians at Al Aqsa Mosque, and after the Israeli military viciously bombed Gaza for 11 days, killing 248 Palestinians and wounding more than 1,900, destroying 16,800 Palestinian homes and displacing tens of thousands of Palestinians.

Outrage against Israel’s ongoing apartheid system and routine attacks on Palestinian rights and lives is mounting worldwide, setting the stage for a new burst of energy in the global movement for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against the Israeli regime — a nonviolent movement in support of the Palestinian struggle for freedom and equality.

Renewed calls for BDS have emerged in the reshaped new political moment following the ceasefire that began on May 20 after President Joe Biden, who has essentially continued Donald Trump’s policy of pandering to Israel, finally put his foot down following outrage by a critical mass of congressional Democrats and protests in the U.S. and around the world, and said he expected “significant de-escalation” of Israel’s attacks on Palestinians. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu complied with Biden’s directive and agreed to the ceasefire with Hamas.

Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) introduced legislation to prevent Biden from selling $735 million in weapons to Israel. That doesn’t count the $3.8 billion in military assistance the U.S. government provides Israel annually, which funds the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories.

In the occupied territories, Israel regulates the entries and departures of the Palestinians and controls the borders, airspace, shoreline and waters off the Gaza coast. Israel expels Palestinians from their homes and facilitates illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

Palestinians are forced “to live in constant uncertainty, making it difficult to perform simple tasks and make plans,” according to B’Tselem, the leading Israeli human rights organization. “A Palestinian leaving home in the morning cannot know whether he or she is going to make it [to] work — on time or at all — or to keep a medical appointment, visit family or catch a movie. She might make it, or she might be delayed at a checkpoint for hours, detained and humiliated by soldiers. She may have to turn around and go back the way she came. She may get arrested.”

Israel’s massacre of Palestinians in “Operation Guardian of the Walls” — the Israeli military’s name for its most recent 11-day assault on Gaza — has led to renewed calls for BDS against the Israeli regime.

The BDS Movement

In 2005, 170 Palestinian civil society organizations called for boycott, divestment and sanctions. They described BDS as “non-violent punitive measures” that would last until Israel fully complies with international law by (1) ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling its barrier wall; (2) recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and (3) respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their land as stipulated in UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

“A particularly important source of Palestinian hope is the growing impact of the Palestinian-led nonviolent BDS movement,” Omar Barghouti, co-founder of BDS, wrote in The Nation. BDS “aims at ending Israel’s regime of military occupation, settler-colonialism, and apartheid and defending the right of Palestinian refugees to return home.”

The BDS movement is largely modeled on the boycott that helped end apartheid in South Africa. As has been confirmed most recently by Human Rights Watch, Israel also maintains a system of apartheid.

In 2001, the National Lawyers Guild sent a delegation to the region and published a report that documented a system of apartheid in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. It detailed illegal Jewish settlements and bypass roads, the restricted movement of Palestinians, discriminatory land policies, the differential treatment of Jews and Palestinian non-Jews, and Israeli policing of Palestinians’ political expression. It analyzed the indiscriminate and excessive use of lethal force against Palestinians and their property, delays and prevention of medical treatment, and Israel’s collective punishment of the Palestinians.

Ronnie Kasrils, minister for intelligence services in South Africa from 2004-2008, equated the South African anti-apartheid struggle with the BDS campaign against Israeli apartheid.

“It is imperative that we of the international community redouble our efforts to aid the Palestinian people in solidarity actions. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign remains the most formidable weapon in our arsenal,” Kasrils wrote at Common Dreams. “It worked to bring about the demise of South African Apartheid behind the internal people’s resistance struggle, and is growing in scope and efficacy, to the extent that Israel has identified the non-violent global movement as a strategic threat. Israel, like apartheid South Africa must pay for its crimes — above all by sanctions.”

Boycotts involve the withdrawal of support for Israel and Israeli and international companies that are violating Palestinian human rights, including Israeli academic, cultural and sporting institutions. Divestment campaigns ask churches, universities, banks, pension funds and local councils to withdraw their investments from all Israeli and international companies complicit in the violation of Palestinian rights. Sanctions campaigns pressure governments to cease military trade and free-trade agreements and urge them to expel Israel from international fora.

BDS has had a significant impact on Israel. The BDS campaign played a major role in the 46 percent decrease in foreign direct investment in Israel in 2014, according to the UN Conference on Trade and Development. Among the individuals and entities who have answered the call for divestment include George Soros, TIAA-CREF public sector pension fund, Bill Gates Foundation, Norwegian bank Nordea, and Dutch pension giant PGGM. Many churches, including the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church USA and several Quaker meetings have divested from companies targeted by the BDS movement. Veolia, the French multinational utility company, withdrew from Israel, resulting in billions of dollars in lost contracts. Major international trade union federations in South Africa, Europe, Latin America, India, Canada and the United States endorse BDS.

There is substantial opposition in the United States to Israel’s occupation. In a 2018 poll, 40 percent of Americans overall and 56 percent of Democrats supported the imposition of sanctions or even more serious penalties on Israel to end the occupation.

The Israel Lobby vs. BDS

Boycotts constitute protected freedom of speech, assembly and association under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They have long been used to fight injustice and achieve social change. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.” The high court ruled that advocating and supporting boycotts “to bring about political, social, and economic change” — like boycotting Israel — are unquestionably protected by the First Amendment.

Biden is staunchly against the BDS movement. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at his confirmation hearing that both he and Biden “resolutely opposed” BDS. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, vehemently denounced BDS at her confirmation hearing, as did Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in written answers to questions from senators before her hearing.

The success of the BDS movement has motivated Israel apologists to sponsor anti-boycott legislation on the state, local and federal levels. These forces include right-wing Christian Zionist organizations and other Israel lobby groups, often funded by the Israeli government.

“Politicians are pushing unconstitutional laws to stop the movement for Palestinian freedom and shield Israel from criticism,” according to Palestine Legal, an organization that protects the civil and constitutional rights of people who support Palestinian freedom. Since 2014, Palestine Legal has kept track of bills targeting advocacy for Palestinian rights.

“Early efforts focused on defunding universities to punish or deter support for an academic boycott of Israeli institutions. Subsequent legislative efforts aimed to prohibit state contracts with or state investments in entities that support BDS,” Palestine Legal explains. “Some anti-boycott laws include written certification requirements, mandating that potential contractors pledge not to boycott Israel, and some call on the state to compile public blacklists of entities that boycott for Palestinian rights or support BDS,” according to Palestine Legal.

Thirty-one states have anti-BDS legislation in effect. Since 2014, 219 anti-boycott bills have been introduced but only 50 of them have been passed, thanks to strong opposition by grassroots and civil liberties groups.

The anti-boycott laws vary in how they define boycotts and the scope of the boycotts at which they are directed. Some bills target boycotts of Israel or goods and services from Israel, and others aim at boycotts of allied countries. The legislation often punishes boycotts of territories controlled by Israel, reaching boycotts of services or products from or to unlawful Israeli settlements. Many bills threaten criminal penalties and economic sanctions. “This legislation also has a broader intent to chill and intimidate activists and their would-be supporters into believing that BDS is now ‘illegal,’” Palestine Legal’s website says.

Some legislation, like the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which was introduced in Congress in 2017 and again in 2019, would have gone even further, with criminal penalties and jail time for furnishing information in support of a boycott of Israel. The Act was defeated in January 2021.

The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 contains several anti-boycott provisions. It includes a statement opposing “politically motivated actions” that would penalize or limit commercial relations with Israel, including BDS campaigns. The law says that discouraging boycotts for Palestinian rights is a primary U.S. objective when negotiating foreign trade agreements. This Act went into effect in 2016. In 2019, the U.S. Bureau of Legislative Affairs provided Congress with its Report on Politically Motivated Acts of Boycott of, Divestment from, and Sanctions Against Israel, as mandated by the Act. It reported on a pro-BDS bill in Ireland. The report also detailed Kuwait’s actions in support of the boycott against Israel, which was upheld by a German court. Responding to U.S. pressure, Germany passed an anti-BDS law.

What to Boycott

The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) is calling for a boycott of Israeli and international companies that are complicit in violations of Palestinian rights. Although virtually all Israeli companies are complicit in Israel’s system of apartheid and occupation, the BNC is targeting boycotts at a small number of products and companies which have a direct role in Israel’s crimes in order to achieve the greatest impact.

BNC is asking individuals to boycott Pillsbury (whose products are made on stolen Palestinian land in illegal Israeli settlements), SodaStream (which is actively complicit in the Israeli policy of displacing Indigenous Bedouin-Palestinian citizens of Israel in the Negev), Puma (which sponsors the Israel Football Association, including teams in Israel’s illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territory), Sabra (whose hummus is a joint venture between PepsiCo and the Strauss Group, an Israeli food company that gives financial support to the Israeli army), Hewlett-Packard (which helps run the biometric ID system that Israel employs to restrict the movement of Palestinians), Ahava (whose cosmetics are produced in an illegal Israeli settlement), AXA (which invests in Israeli banks that finance the theft of Palestinian land and natural resources), and all Israeli produce in your local supermarket (which are often mislabeled “Produce in Israel” when they in fact come from the occupied Palestinian territories).

The world watched horrified as Israeli forces once again slaughtered Palestinians in Gaza, which is often called the world’s largest open-air prison (one of the most densely populated areas on Earth, containing more than 5,000 inhabitants per square kilometer), until Biden told Netanyahu to stop. This latest violence has galvanized even more people in the United States and around the world to stop Israel’s brutality against the Palestinians. In this moment of mass outrage, as more people join the BDS movement and work together to overcome the strategies of repression and criminalization aimed to thwart it, BDS has the potential to grow and become an even more powerful force in the Palestinian struggle to end Israel’s occupation and system of apartheid.

*

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

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, a member of the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues

Featured image is from The Bullet

Video: Drone Warfare in the Middle East

May 25th, 2021 by South Front

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Iran, if Israel is concerned, is busy producing nuclear weapons, conventional weapons, drones and little else.

On May 23rd, nine people were wounded in an explosion at a factory in the city of Shahin Shahr in the central Iranian province of Isfahan.

According to Iranian state media, the factory produces industrial and commercial explosive materials, including fireworks and gunpowder, as well as various chemicals. The factory operates under the supervision of the National Security Council.

Meanwhile, Amichai Stein, a correspondent for the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation, claimed that Iran was manufacturing drones at the facility. It is not a speculative conclusion to consider that Stein’s words suggest that the blast at the Iranian factory could be the result of Israeli “interference”. The journalist linked the explosion to a recent incident, in which the Israeli military shot down an armed drone near the city of Beit She’an. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Iran of launching it from either Iraq or Syria.

In Syria, also on May 23rd, other unidentified combat drones carried out a series of strikes on the outskirts of the town of al-Bukamal in southern Deir Ezzor. The town is held by Damascus’ forces and it is right next to the Iraqi border. The strikes destroyed a number of newly-built hangars in al-Hamdan desert. The strikes didn’t result in any human losses.

A day earlier, an unidentified combat drone targeted a pickup vehicle to the east of al-Bukamal, inside Iraqi territory. Israel and the US were both blamed by Iraqi sources. No casualties were reported.

ISIS is still quite active near and inside Deir Ezzor, but drone attacks by the terrorist group are uncommon.

In the days leading up to the drone raid, ISIS carried out a series of attacks on Syrian Arab Army (SAA) forces.

The first one happened on May 18th, and eight SAA soldiers and pro-government fighters were reportedly killed in an ambush by ISIS cells in the Maskanah desert in southern Aleppo.

On May 20th, terrorists attacked a position of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in the Durihim desert in the southern countryside of Aleppo.

May 22nd saw ISIS attack a convoy of tankers moving oil from northeastern Syria to government-held areas near al-Manakhir in southern Raqqa.

On the same day, three pro-government fighters were reportedly killed in the Ma’adan desert in southern Raqqa after being struck with an IED.

Syria is looking to contain the terrorists, and active negotiations with Iran are on-going on the matter, as well as on other security issues. This includes Israel, which is vehemently attempting to stop any active cooperation between Syria and its allies.

*

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


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“The total amount of third world debt has already been repaid six times over in interest.”(1)

As of 2020, the total amount of debt owed by developing countries was $11 trillion.(2) The cost of interest on this debt was hundreds of billions of dollars per year, or over $1 billion per day. This is many times greater than the aid given by rich countries.(3) This post summarises the main reasons why countries should not have to repay all of their debts.

Borrowing Money for Weapons: Paying For Your Corrupt Boss’ Crimes 

“For years, rich countries willingly provided loans to the dictatorship in our country. Now, we are asked to pay for the bullets which were fired at us.”(4)

A close look at the reasons for lending in specific cases highlights the unfairness of the system. It has been estimated that from 1960-1987, developing countries borrowed $400 billion to spend on weapons. Much of Iraq’s debt was due to money lent to finance Saddam Hussein’s war with Iran in the 1980s.(5) We saw in earlier posts that most money spent on weapons by the poorest countries comes straight back to much richer countries, lining the pockets of shareholders and executives of weapons companies.(6) The Indonesian dictator, Suharto, received loans for tanks and warplanes that were used to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people. The Indonesian people are expected to repay those loans. The same is true of many countries that used to be run by dictators. Britain and the US helped to keep these dictators in power, against the wishes of their people, yet the people are still expected to repay their dictators’ debts.  

We saw in an earlier post that sanctions (depriving a country of basic essentials) can cause devastation, yet people from many countries, including Iraq, Panama and Vietnam, have been expected to repay loans whilst suffering from sanctions imposed by rich nations.

White Elephants – The money goes to companies and consultants from rich countries 

Large amounts of money has been lent to finance huge projects that are of little value to ordinary people. These are known as white elephants. The most obvious of these would be nuclear power plants that were finished 20 years behind schedule and cost many times their original estimate, producing some of the most expensive energy on Earth. Forty-five thousand dams have been built, displacing fifty million people and costing $2 trillion. Many went way over budget, such as a South American dam that was expected to cost $3.6 billion but ended up costing $21 billion. It was described by the former Paraguayan minister of energy as “possibly the largest fraud in the history of capitalism.” Some dams were designed so badly that they unexpectedly flooded thousands of square miles of land, and produce much less energy than expected. Where private contractors are running these powerplants, governments have ended up with contracts where they have to pay for energy that is not used.

Railroads have been constructed that run “from no place to nowhere.” Again, many of the loans for these projects went into the pockets of wealthy shareholders and executives of construction companies in rich countries, together with consultants from those countries. There is even a capital city in Nigeria called Abuja that was built in the middle of nowhere and seemed for many years to have no purpose. The Nigerian people have a joke about the city. They ask God if ordinary people will ever see the benefits of Abuja. He responds “Not in my lifetime.”(7)

The System Is Rigged Against Borrowing Countries 

When a developing country borrows money from international lenders, it usually does so using an established currency, such as US dollars. The exchange rate with its own currency can fluctuate. Some borrowing countries are actually encouraged to change their exchange rate (this is known as devaluing their currency) making loans more expensive to repay. The interest rate is often high and can also fluctuate.

Some loans are used to grow crops for export, but the price of these crops also varies. In 1999, Nicaraguan coffee sold for $1.44 per pound. By 2002, this price had dropped to $0.40 per pound. This means they have to sell three times as much coffee to pay their debts. All three of these factors, exchange rate, interest rate and prices, are beyond the control of the borrowing country – they are controlled by traders and banks in rich countries. In theory these rates can go either way, but in practice poor countries have repeatedly lost out.(8) Conditions can easily change sufficiently that poor countries can no longer afford to repay debts, through no fault of their own.

If the price of coffee drops below the price of production, then it does not matter how much coffee is sold – there is zero profit, and coffee sales cannot be used to repay the debt. Most developing countries have provided enough coffee, cocoa, cotton, cobalt, gold, oil and diamonds (and everything else that they export) to pay back their original loans many times over, yet they still have huge debts. Unlike businesses, countries cannot declare bankruptcy. Banks try not to write-off debts, so they keep lending ever-more money to borrowers to pay off their earlier debts, together with the interest on those debts. The debt just keeps getting bigger. An observer in Nigeria pointed out:

“We borrowed $5 billion. We have paid back $16 billion, but we still owe $28 billion”.

Rich People Keep Stealing the Money 

Nigeria provides a good case study of debt and capital flight. The best estimate of the total wealth stolen by corrupt dictators and their cronies since 1960 in Nigeria is $120 billion.(9) This is enough to repay their debts many times over. The same is true in many poor countries. Two leading experts wrote:

“Of the money borrowed by African governments in recent decades, more than half departed in the same year, with a significant portion of it winding up in private accounts at the very banks that provided the loans in the first place”(10)

The Destructive Power of Compound Interest 

The effect of compound interest on loans to developing countries is extremely important. If a country borrowed $1 million in 1980 at 7% interest, the total debt would now be approximately $16 million. When interest rates are very high, the debt increases more rapidly. If we re-do the same calculation at 14% interest, the total debt would be $250 million. If the interest rate on a loan is even one per cent too high, then the borrower pays a considerable amount of extra interest over a long period of time.

The system of excessive interest on international loans is a deliberate mechanism to transfer wealth from poor countries to rich ones, or from governments to rich people. In the 1980’s and 1990’s, many South American countries experienced serious problems due to excessive interest on their debts.(11) In an extreme example, the Argentinian government was paying 45% interest on loans (known as dollar bonds). Many of these bonds were owned by wealthy Argentinians. The leading expert on the system, Michael Hudson, has explained that these bonds are actually a complex mechanism to help the rich take their money out of the country.(12)

It’s All About Conditions 

Most people think of loans as having two parts, the capital and the interest. In the international world there is a third part – the conditions that come with the loan. This is arguably the most important part. Countries that want to borrow can be more easily persuaded to follow the guidance of advisors from rich countries, to privatise their industries, and to open up their markets for further exploitation by big corporations. In order to qualify to have the debts written off, countries have to implement these same policies.(13) The manipulation of these debts is a means of helping rich countries and their corporations take control of resources and trade in poor countries. Many of these countries have effectively been conquered economically.

Governments from developing countries have been advised to decrease spending on basic necessities (known as austerity), but at the same time they have been forced to keep paying their debts. Nicaragua spends four times as much on debt as on education.(14) One expert on Mozambique said:

“A large share of the government revenues of Mozambique have to be spent on servicing the debt. Little is left for health, education and water provision.”(15)

The interests of banks and investors are considered more important than the lives and health of billions of people. 

Debts can, and should, be written off 

If we write off all debts that were spent on weapons, that were used to support murderous dictators, that were stashed in personal offshore bank accounts in tax havens, that were spent on grand schemes of little benefit to the population, that lined the pockets of Western consultants, or that have grown enormously due to excessive compound interest, the amount outstanding would be very much less than the amount that rich countries still want repaid. If we then deduct the amount already repaid, it would almost certainly be less than zero. Governments and banks in rich countries do not want to do these calculations, because they do not want to admit that the whole system is so corrupt. When researchers examine in detail what happened to the original money that was loaned to specific countries, they conclude that much of the outstanding debt should be canceled.(16) For example, when loans to Ecuador were analysed, some of them violated international law, as well as domestic laws in lending countries, and laws in Ecuador.(17) In total, $3 billion of Ecuador’s debt was illegitimate. The technical term for this is odious debt.

Writing off debts is nothing new. This has been a regular process for thousands of years,(18) and various multi-billion dollar loans to the US and Europe have been written off over the years.(19) Our politicians occasionally write off some of the debts of the poorest countries, but they are rarely as generous as they claim. In some cases, aid is reduced by the same amount as the debt written off, so poor countries get no real benefit. Some schemes do not end debts altogether. They merely reduce them to a level that rich countries consider ‘sustainable.’ What this really means is the greatest amount of interest that can be extorted each year without quite tipping a country into revolution and civil war. The debt written off in recent years is just a small fraction of the amount owed.(20)

The propaganda related to debt is very powerful. Most people have been conditioned to believe that we all have a moral obligation to repay debts.(21) The idea that debts are a powerful mechanism for controlling or exploiting others is rarely discussed. We need to change the whole framework of discussions around debts, and force lenders to accept responsibility for their criminal or unethical practices. In business, it is accepted that debts can be written off. Lenders accept that when they make a loan, there is a risk that they will not get their money back. The same should be true of international lending.

This is a Huge Problem for Some Rich Countries Too

These issues became much more apparent to people in rich countries, when Greece was forced to pursue austerity, in 2010, as a condition of its debt arrangements. Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain also suffered. This had devastating consequences for the people of these countries, particularly the poor. Their situation is particularly difficult as they use the Euro as their currency, which gives them much less control over their finances.

A golden rule for all countries should be to borrow as little as possible in foreign currencies. If a country can create its own currency, it can be used to pay local people to do most of the things needed for development. It is straightforward to set up a national healthcare network, to set up a national system of schools and universities, to train doctors and engineers, to build a country’s infrastructure, or to begin the process of industrialization. It has been done successfully even in very poor countries. Forcing countries to borrow money denominated in US$ is a deliberate strategy by the US to maintain its power.(22)

*

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

This article was first posted on medium.com/elephantsintheroom

Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking modern-day US and British propaganda, and explaining war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream media. 

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1) Didier Rod, comment in European Parliament, 25 April, 2002, at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20020425+ITEMS+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN 

2) Homi Kharas, ‘What to do about the coming debt crisis in developing countries’, Brookings, 13 April 2020, at https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2020/04/13/what-to-do-about-the-coming-debt-crisis-in-developing-countries/

This is defined as emerging market and developing country debt. 

Larry Elliott, ‘Debt in developing countries has doubled in les than a decade’, The Guardian, 16 August 2020, at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/16/debt-in-developing-countries-has-doubled-in-less-than-a-decade 

3) David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, 2005, p.193

4) Noha El Shoky, Egyptians for a Sovereign Debt Audit, at www.jubileedebt.org.uk

5) James S. Henry, The Blood Bankers, p.344

6) How It All Began, at www.jubileeresearch.org

7) James S. Henry, The Blood Bankers, Chapter 1

8) James S. Henry, The Blood Bankers, 2003, pp.207-215

Faisal Islam, ‘Class A Capitalists’, The Observer, 21 April 2002, athttp://observer.guardian.co.uk/drugs/story/0,,686664,00.html

ICO, ‘Historical Data on the Global Coffee Trade’, International Coffee Organization, at http://www.ico.org/historical/1990%20onwards/PDF/3a-prices-growers.pdf 

9) Jack Blum, cited in Kamari Clarke and Deborah Thomas, Globalization and Race: Transformations in the Cultural Production of Blackness, 2006

10) James Boyce and Leonce Ndikumana, Africa’s odious debts: How foreign loans and capital flight bled a continent, 2011

11) ‘The Mexican 1982 Debt Crisis’, Rabobank, 19 Sep 2013, at https://economics.rabobank.com/publications/2013/september/the-mexican-1982-debt-crisis/ 

12) Michael Hudson, Argentina back on the debt train’, 23 July 2018, at https://michael-hudson.com/2018/07/argentina-back-on-the-debt-train/

13) Anup Shah, ‘$40 billion debt write-off is not a historic breakthrough’, Global Issues, 10 July 2005, at http://www.globalissues.org/article/544/40-billion-debt-write-off-is-not-a-historic-breakthrough 

14) Ngaire Woods, The Globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank, and their Borrowers, 2007, p.168

15) Dr. Eufrigina dos Reis, Mozambique Debt Group, at https://jubileedebt.org.uk/

16) Joseph Hanlon, ‘How much debt must be cancelled?’, Journal of International Development, Vol. 12, Issue 6, pp. 877 – 901, August 2000

17) ‘Debt Resistors’, Jubilee Debt Campaign, at https://jubileedebt.org.uk/the-debt-crisis/debt-resistors

18) David Graeber, Debt: The first 5,000 years

Michael Hudson and Harold Crooks, ‘Bronze age redux: On debt, clean slates and what the ancients have to teach U’, Counterpunch, 1 May 2018, at https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/01/bronze-age-redux-on-debt-clean-slates-and-what-the-ancients-have-to-teach-u/

19) Joseph Hanlon, ‘How Much Debt Must Be Cancelled’, Journal of International Development, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp.877-901

20) ‘The Basics About Debt’, at www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/?lid=98

21) Eric Toussaint, The Debt System: A history of sovereign debts and their repudiation, 2019

22) ‘Michael Hudson discusses the IMF and World Bank: Partners in economic backwardness’, interview by Bonnie Faulkner, 4 July 2019, at https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/07/michael-hudson-discusses-the-imf-and-world-bank-partners-in-backwardness.html

Millions of Electric Cars Are Coming. What Happens to All the Dead Batteries?

By Ian Morse, May 24, 2021

The battery pack of a Tesla Model S is a feat of intricate engineering. Thousands of cylindrical cells with components sourced from around the world transform lithium and electrons into enough energy to propel the car hundreds of kilometers, again and again, without tailpipe emissions.

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

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 24, 2021

Each of the ten chapters provides factual information as well as analysis on the following topics: What Is Covid-19, what is SARS-CoV-2, how Is it identified, how is it estimated? The timeline and historical evolution of the Corona Crisis, the devastating economic and financial impacts, the enrichment of a social minority of billionaires, how the lockdown policies trigger unemployment and mass poverty Worldwide, the devastating impacts on mental health.

America’s Public Health System Is Utterly Corrupt

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 24, 2021

Try to find an American institution that is not corrupt.  Even when presented with the Covid threat the US public health system could not rise above the greed for profit.  Effective cures, such as HCQ and Ivermectin were demonized and in many states prohibited.  Most Covid deaths are the result of non-treatment.  

How the CDC Is Manipulating Data to Prop-up “Vaccine Effectiveness”

By Kit Knightly, May 24, 2021

The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) is altering its practices of data logging and testing for “Covid19” in order to make it seem the experimental gene-therapy “vaccines” are effective at preventing the alleged disease. They made no secret of this, announcing the policy changes on their website in late April/early May, (though naturally without admitting the fairly obvious motivation behind the change).

The People of Palestine Have Been Terrorized

By Yasser Abed and Chris Jones, May 24, 2021

On Samos this led to the refugees from Gaza working closely with Sofiane from Open Doors to raise money and to get it through to Gaza without delay. In less than a day money was raised and sent and used to provide food parcels for those with nothing. No NGOs or the like, just ordinary people using their networks and local knowledge to get help to where it is most needed.

Weapons of War on Our Streets: The Militarization of America’s Police

By Sam Jacobs, May 24, 2021

The claim often heard from those attempting to pass more gun control legislation is that all they’re trying to do is get the “weapons of war off our streets,” but it’s simply untrue that “weapons of war” are available to the general public. You’d last about three minutes in a conventional war with an AR-15, even with one of the most aggressive builds you can get your hands on (that doesn’t mean it’s impossible for guerilla uprisings to defeat powerful enemies).

History: The Inherent Irony in the Palestinian-Israeli Struggle

By Courtenay Barnett, May 24, 2021

The word ‘irony’ sums up much that is probably inherent in human nature and manifest at times in human history, when one considers the on-going conflict between the Palestinians and Israel. Historical pogroms had been launched against Jews – ‘pogroms’ used in the widest sense of its meaning as violent attack, expulsion, or marginalisations – then the history is a long one.

COVID-19 and the PCR Test — No Pandemic, Only Junk Data!

By Gavin Phillips, May 24, 2021

Governments around the world have enforced unprecedented restrictions on people’s lives, imposing lockdowns that closed down most of society for months at a time. Stopping people from visiting their family, isolating the elderly in care homes and destroying millions of people’s livelihoods. These draconian laws were brought in to control an alleged pandemic created by a new virus called SARS-CoV-2 that creates the respiratory illness of Covid 19.

Time to End the Silence on Israel’s Nuclear Weapons

By Mehrnaz Shahabi, May 24, 2021

The attack on Natanz nuclear enrichment plant in Iran, on April 11, targeting underground centrifuges operating under (IAEA) safeguards, was an act of nuclear terror with the potential to kill and harm many thousands of human beings and irreparably contaminate the environment. Although Israel has not confirmed or denied responsibility, the media have almost universally attributed the attack to Israel, citing senior American and Israeli intelligence officials confirming Israel’s involvement.

Interpretation and Investigation: The Conspiracy Theory Trap

By Emanuel Pastreich, May 24, 2021

The creation of events that will promote irreconcilable interpretations in different interpretive communities has become a cottage industry for the rich and powerful. The radically divergent tales concerning mass shootings and attacks on minorities does wonders to exacerbate rifts between groups in the United States who might otherwise find common ground. These deep fissures in the basic assumptions about events render cooperation between these groups impossible.

Bombshell: Nobel Prize Winner Reveals – COVID Vaccine Is ‘Creating Variants’

By Renee Nal, May 24, 2021

As reported at RAIR in April of last year, Prof. Montagnier presented a powerful case that the coronavirus was created in a lab. His comments at the time offended the left-wing establishment so much that they aggressively attempted to discredit his statement. Now, the media is backpedaling on the origin of the coronavirus after prominent scientists called for further scrutiny.

COVID Vaccines May Bring Avalanche of Neurological Disease

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 24, 2021

Five months into the vaccination campaign, statistics tell a frightening story. Seneff cites research showing deaths are 14.6 times more frequent during the first 14 days after the first COVID injection among people over the age of 60, compared to those who aren’t vaccinated. That is extraordinary. You can read the full paper here.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: How the CDC Is Manipulating Data to Prop-up “Vaccine Effectiveness”
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China and the February 1, 2021 Coup d’Etat in Burma: Beijing’s Geopolitical Nightmare

Afghan Nationalism Faces Existential Challenge

May 24th, 2021 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Afghan conundrum is mutating 

The commencement of the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan by the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has got off to a flying start. So far there has been no hiccup. One significant landmark has been the vacation of the big American base at Kandahar, southern Afghanistan. 

There is some poignancy here. A recent despatch by the Washington Post reported that “The battle against the Taliban has seesawed for months on the outskirts of Kandahar city. The second-largest city in Afghanistan, Kandahar holds strategic and symbolic value. Its province was once home to the busiest NATO base in the country, shares a long, porous border with Pakistan and was where the Taliban movement first formally mobilised.”

The fact that in a matter of some three weeks alone since the troop pullout began formally on May 1, twenty percent of the withdrawal process has been successfully completed is a matter of satisfaction for the Pentagon and the Biden Administration as well as the US’ allies in Europe.  

It emerges that the latent fear in Washington and Brussels that the Taliban might taunt, harass and humiliate the retreating western forces (which includes NATO troops as well), is steadily receding. Consequently, there is a growing measure of confidence about what the future portends, which is reflected in the NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg’s statement last week about an open-ended presence of the alliance in Afghanistan beyond September, even if in a modified role. 

Notably, Stoltenberg was speaking during a meeting in Paris with the French President Emmanuel Macron. Germany is already on board as regards continued NATO presence in Afghanistan. 

Evidently, Pakistan is compelling the Taliban to “cooperate” with the US and NATO’s revised troop withdrawal schedule, notwithstanding the threatening complaints voiced by the latter from time to time as regards the Biden administration’s retraction from the core commitment given under the Doha pact by the American side on the timeline of completion of Pentagon troop withdrawal by May 1. 

Put differently, Pakistan has risen to the western expectations as regards a safe and orderly drawdown (unlike in Vietnam.) This raises in turn new possibilities. Just as Americans have a saying that there’s nothing like free lunch in a transactional relationship, it is legitimate for the Pakistani side also  to explore the quid pro quo by the Biden administration. In fact, the US-Pakistan relationship historically becomes a chronicle of “free lunches” with conditions attached. 

Inevitably, a dialectics came into being over time between the two inseparable partners indulging in “free lunches” and “quid pro quos” and sustaining and mutually reinforcing each other. All evidence points toward that familiar pattern returning in the problematic US-Pakistan relationship. This will cause some worry in both Kabul and New Delhi — and, perhaps, in Beijing, Moscow and Tehran as well. 

Thus, the repeated visits by the British top brass to Rawalpindi in the recent months must be highlighted here. To borrow the infinitely sad words expressed by the late Princess Diana in her interview with the BBC about “three people in a relationship,” there has always been a hovering British presence in the US-Pakistan relationship — which is on call, but keeping the head just below the parapet, while all dressed up raring to go at short notice. 

In particular, when it comes to the Pakistan-Afghanistan relationship, the vexing issues have been historically bequeathed to the region by Lord Curzon. Therefore, as the search for an Afghan settlement intensifies, Britain’s role becomes important. 

Unsurprisingly, at the controversial meeting in Kabul on May 10 between Pakistani army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa and Afghan President Ashraf Ghania, also present was Britain’s chief of defence staff General Nicholas Patrick Carter. (Gen. Carter and Gen. Bajwa also met separately.)

Quite obviously, London was working hard in setting up the Ghania-Bajwa encounter in Kabul for some two months since the consultations in early March that General Carter had in the Pakistani GHQ in Rawalpindi with the Pakistani COAS. Gen. Carter is well-regarded in Kabul and makes a perfect mediator. Ghania later warmly referred to the general’s presence at his May 10 meeting with Bajwa at the presidential palace: “General Carter is a mutual friend. We’ve known each other for over 10 years, since he commanded the ISAF forces in Kandahar. He’s a wonderful man. It sometimes takes special people in history to come together in a crisis.” 

Indeed, the indications are that Britain is quietly working behind the scene to bring about an understanding over the disputed Durand Line (which Kabul doesn’t recognise), which is of course a British legacy and remains intractable in the absence of a new security arrangement. The Kabul elite have generally viewed Gen.Carter’s efforts in a positive spirit, given the realisation that the Durand Line question is of fundamental importance and will continue to cast shadows on Afghan-Pakistan relations unless some mutually acceptable arrangement could be worked out alongside any Afghan peace agreement. 

Ideally, Pakistan would like to host a meeting between Ghania and Taliban chief Mawlawi Hibatullah Akhundzada in the near term as a confidence building measure. Conceivably, Kabul is veering round to the view that an understanding over the Durand Line question would be the price to pay for Pakistan’s good-neighbourly behaviour and scrupulous non-interference in Afghan affairs, especially its projection of power across the Khyber, henceforth. But then, this is a chicken-and-egg situation and that is why the old colonial power’s mediatory role can be useful to instil mutual confidence.      

Indeed, Britain would also like to take a “hands-on” role in all this. For, there is every indication that Britain will work shoulder to shoulder with the US in any future special forces operations in Afghanistan in the period ahead beyond September 11 when the western troop withdrawal will be notionally over and behind us. 

It is useful to factor in that post-Brexit Global Britain aspires to be an active participant in the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy to contain China’s rise. In anticipation of the shape of things to come, in a major reorganisation in March as part of a larger strategic shift amid great-power competition, emphasising special-operations units, British special-operations forces will henceforth see changes modelled on their US counterparts. 

The 70-page MOD document titled Defence in a competitive agepresented before the House of Commons in March, views China and Russia as Britain’s most important threats, and although the British military will downsize, it expects to be more competitive against Moscow and Beijing. The British special-operations or special-operations-capable units can be divided into two tiers — the first tier comprising the Special Air Service (SAS), Special Boat Service (SBS), Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR), and Special Forces Support Group (SFSG), which focus on counterterrorism, hostage rescue, intelligence gathering, and direct action, while the second tier includes the Royal Marines Commandos, Parachute Regiment, and the 18 Signals Regiment. A Joint Special Forces Aviation Wing provides air transportation and support to all of the above units. 

All these come under the the Strategic Command that supervises joint and national mission formations and overseas operations. Interestingly, only a fortnight after the visit of General Carter to Rawalpindi in early March to meet Gen. Bajwa, the latter had another visitor from Britain — General Sir Patrick Nicholas Yardley Monrad Sanders, Commander Strategic Command, UK. 

The ISPR readout said, “During the meeting (on March 25), matters of professional and mutual interest and regional security issues were discussed. The visiting top UK military commander acknowledged and appreciated Pakistan Army’s sincere efforts in the fight against terrorism and efforts for bringing peace and stability in the region, especially the Afghan peace process.” 

Without doubt, these visits by the two topmost generals of the British armed forces in such quick succession to Rawalpindi — the chief of defence staff and the consider of the strategic command — were in the context of planning the future security operations in Afghanistan following the US withdrawal of troops. The Pentagon is well aware that the British are pioneers in special operations — be it in Afghanistan or in its neighbouring regions. 

Now, all this probably accounts for the intense curiosity about some secret joint activity being undertaken by the US and Pakistani military feverishly in Pakistan’s FATA region bordering Afghanistan — precisely, from Shelozan to Tari Mangal and Jazo Maidan areas — to construct military bases on the Pakistani side of the Durand Line. 

*

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

Featured image: A Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle being loaded on to a flatbed trailer, Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan. (File photo) 

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official. The framers would be appalled.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation

We’ve all been there before.

You’re driving along and you see a pair of flashing blue lights in your rearview mirror. Whether or not you’ve done anything wrong, you get a sinking feeling in your stomach.

You’ve read enough news stories, seen enough headlines, and lived in the American police state long enough to be anxious about any encounter with a cop that takes place on the side of the road.

For better or worse, from the moment you’re pulled over, you’re at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

This is what I call “blank check policing,” in which the police get to call all of the shots.

So if you’re nervous about traffic stops, you have every reason to be.

Trying to predict the outcome of any encounter with the police is a bit like playing Russian roulette: most of the time you will emerge relatively unscathed, although decidedly poorer and less secure about your rights, but there’s always the chance that an encounter will turn deadly.

Try to assert your right to merely ask a question during a traffic stop and see how far it gets you.

Juanisha Brooks—black, 34 years old and on her way home at 2:20 am—was pulled over, handcuffed, arrested and charged with resisting arrest, eluding the police, reckless driving and failure to use headlights after repeatedly asking police why she had been stopped. When Brooks—a Department of Defense employee—filed a complaint, prosecutors conceded that the traffic stop had been carried out without “proper legal basis” and dropped all charges.

Caron Nazario, a uniformed Army officer returning home from his duty station, was stopped for not having a rear license plate (his temporary plates were taped to the rear window of his new SUV). Nazario, who is Black and Latino, pulled over at a well-lit gas station only to be pepper sprayed, held at gunpoint, beaten and threatened with execution.

Zachary Noel was tasered by police and charged with resisting arrest after he questioned why he was being ordered out of his truck during a traffic stop. “Because I’m telling you to,” the officer replied before repeating his order for Noel to get out of the vehicle and then, without warning, shooting him with a taser through the open window.

Despite complying with all police orders when ordered to show his identification and exit his parked vehicle, Jeriel Edwards was subjected to excessive force and brutality, including being thrown to the ground, tasered, and placed in a chokehold that rendered him unconscious and required his hospitalization for three days. Although dash cam video of the arrest confirms that Edwards was peaceful, did not defy police orders, and did nothing to provoke police, a federal court ruled that Edwards’ trouble understanding police directions during the encounter constituted “resistance” that justified the force used by the four police officers involved in the violent arrest. Edwards is African-American.

Gregory Tucker, also black, was stopped by police for a broken taillight, only to be thrown to the ground, beaten and punched in the face and body more than 20 times, then arrested and hospitalized for severe injuries to his face and arm, all for allegedly “resisting arrest” by driving to a safe, well-lit area in front of his cousin’s house before stopping.

No wonder Americans are afraid of getting pulled over by police.

Mind you, all of these individuals complied with police. They just didn’t do it fast enough to suit their purposes.

At a time when police can do no wrong—at least in the eyes of the courts, police unions and politicians dependent on their votes—and a “fear” for officer safety is used to justify all manner of police misconduct, “we the people” are at a severe disadvantage.

Add a traffic stop to the mix, and that disadvantage increases dramatically.

According to the Justice Department, the most common reason for a citizen to come into contact with the police is being a driver in a traffic stop.

On average, one in 10 Americans gets pulled over by police.

According to data collected under Virginia’s new Community Policing Act, black drivers are almost two times more likely than white drivers to be pulled over by police and three times more likely to have their vehicles searched. As the Washington Post concludes, “‘Driving while black’ is, indeed, a measurable phenomenon.”

Historically, police officers have been given free range to pull anyone over for a variety of reasons.

This free-handed approach to traffic stops has resulted in drivers being stopped for windows that are too heavily tinted, for driving too fast, driving too slow, failing to maintain speed, following too closely, improper lane changes, distracted driving, screeching a car’s tires, and leaving a parked car door open for too long.

Motorists can also be stopped by police for driving near a bar or on a road that has large amounts of drunk driving, driving a certain make of car (Mercedes, Grand Prix and Hummers are among the most ticketed vehicles), having anything dangling from the rearview mirror (air fresheners, handicap parking permits, toll transponders or rosaries), and displaying pro-police bumper stickers.

Incredibly, a federal appeals court actually ruled unanimously in 2014 that acne scars and driving with a stiff upright posture are reasonable grounds for being pulled over. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that driving a vehicle that has a couple air fresheners, rosaries and pro-police bumper stickers at 2 MPH over the speed limit is suspicious, meriting a traffic stop.

Equally appalling, in Heien v. North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court—which has largely paved the way for the police and other government agents to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance—allowed police officers to stop drivers who appear nervous, provided they provide a palatable pretext for doing so.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the lone objector in the case. Dissenting in Heien, Sotomayor warned, “Giving officers license to effect seizures so long as they can attach to their reasonable view of the facts some reasonable legal interpretation (or misinterpretation) that suggests a law has been violated significantly expands this authority… One wonders how a citizen seeking to be law-abiding and to structure his or her behavior to avoid these invasive, frightening, and humiliating encounters could do so.”

In other words, drivers beware.

Traffic stops aren’t just dangerous. They can be downright deadly.

Remember Walter L. Scott? Reportedly pulled over for a broken taillight, Scott—unarmed—ran away from the police officer, who pursued and shot him from behind, first with a Taser, then with a gun. Scott was struck five times, “three times in the back, once in the upper buttocks and once in the ear — with at least one bullet entering his heart.”

Samuel Dubose, also unarmed, was pulled over for a missing front license plate. He was reportedly shot in the head after a brief struggle in which his car began rolling forward.

Levar Jones was stopped for a seatbelt offense, just as he was getting out of his car to enter a convenience store. Directed to show his license, Jones leaned into his car to get his wallet, only to be shot four times by the “fearful” officer. Jones was also unarmed.

Bobby Canipe was pulled over for having an expired registration. When the 70-year-old reached into the back of his truck for his walking cane, the officer fired several shots at him, hitting him once in the abdomen.

Dontrell Stevens was stopped “for not bicycling properly.” The officer pursuing him “thought the way Stephens rode his bike was suspicious. He thought the way Stephens got off his bike was suspicious.” Four seconds later, sheriff’s deputy Adams Lin shot Stephens four times as he pulled out a black object from his waistband. The object was his cell phone. Stephens was unarmed.

Sandra Bland, pulled over for allegedly failing to use her turn signal, was arrested after refusing to comply with the police officer’s order to extinguish her cigarette and exit her vehicle. The encounter escalated, with the officer threatening to “light” Bland up with his taser. Three days later, Bland was found dead in her jail cell. “You’re doing all of this for a failure to signal?” Bland asked as she got out of her car, after having been yelled at and threatened repeatedly.

Keep in mind, from the moment those lights start flashing and that siren goes off, we’re all in the same boat. However, it’s what happens after you’ve been pulled over that’s critical.

Survival is key.

Technically, you have the right to remain silent (beyond the basic requirement to identify yourself and show your registration). You have the right to refuse to have your vehicle searched. You have the right to film your interaction with police. You have the right to ask to leave. You also have the right to resist an unlawful order such as a police officer directing you to extinguish your cigarette, put away your phone or stop recording them.

However, there is a price for asserting one’s rights. That price grows more costly with every passing day.

If you ask cops and their enablers what Americans should do to stay alive during encounters with police, they will tell you to comply, cooperate, obey, not resist, not argue, not make threatening gestures or statements, avoid sudden movements, and submit to a search of their person and belongings.

Unfortunately, there are no longer any fail-safe rules of engagement for interacting with the police.

In the American police state, compliance is no guarantee that you will survive an encounter with the police with your life and liberties intact.

Every day we hear about situations in which unarmed Americans complied and still died during an encounter with police simply because they appeared to be standing in a “shooting stance” or held a cell phone or a garden hose or carried around a baseball bat or answered the front door or held a spoon in a threatening manner or ran in an aggressive manner holding a tree branch or wandered around naked or hunched over in a defensive posture or made the mistake of wearing the same clothes as a carjacking suspect (dark pants and a basketball jersey) or dared to leave an area at the same time that a police officer showed up or had a car break down by the side of the road or were deaf or homeless or old.

More often than not, it seems as if all you have to do to be shot and killed by police is stand a certain way, or move a certain way, or hold something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or ignite some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

Now you can make all kinds of excuses to justify these shootings, and in fact that’s exactly what you’ll hear from politicians, police unions, law enforcement officials and individuals who are more than happy to march in lockstep with the police.

However, to suggest that a good citizen is a compliant citizen and that obedience will save us from the police state is not only recklessly irresponsible, but it is also deluded and out of touch with reality.

To begin with, and most importantly, Americans need to know their rights when it comes to interactions with the police, bearing in mind that many law enforcement officials are largely ignorant of the law themselves.

A good resource is The Rutherford Institute’s “Constitutional Q&A: Rules of Engagement for Interacting with Police.”

In a nutshell, the following are your basic rights when it comes to interactions with the police as outlined in the Bill of Rights:

You have the right under the First Amendment to ask questions and express yourself. You have the right under the Fourth Amendment to not have your person or your property searched by police or any government agent unless they have a search warrant authorizing them to do so.  You have the right under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent, to not incriminate yourself and to request an attorney. Depending on which state you live in and whether your encounter with police is consensual as opposed to your being temporarily detained or arrested, you may have the right to refuse to identify yourself. Not all states require citizens to show their ID to an officer (although drivers in all states must do so).

As a rule of thumb, you should always be sure to clarify in any police encounter whether or not you are being detained, i.e., whether you have the right to walk away. That holds true whether it’s a casual “show your ID” request on a boardwalk, a stop-and-frisk search on a city street, or a traffic stop for speeding or just to check your insurance. If you feel like you can’t walk away from a police encounter of your own volition—and more often than not you can’t, especially when you’re being confronted by someone armed to the hilt with all manner of militarized weaponry and gear—then for all intents and purposes, you’re essentially under arrest from the moment a cop stops you. Still, it doesn’t hurt to clarify that distinction.

While technology is always going to be a double-edged sword, with the gadgets that are the most useful to us in our daily lives—GPS devices, cell phones, the internet—being the very tools used by the government to track us, monitor our activities, and generally spy on us, cell phones are particularly useful for recording encounters with the police and have proven to be increasingly powerful reminders to police that they are not all powerful.

Knowing your rights is only part of the battle, unfortunately.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the hard part comes in when you have to exercise those rights in order to hold government officials accountable to respecting those rights.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

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

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

India on the Brink of Sanitary Catastrophe

May 24th, 2021 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on India on the Brink of Sanitary Catastrophe

All Global Research articles 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 battery pack of a Tesla Model S is a feat of intricate engineering. Thousands of cylindrical cells with components sourced from around the world transform lithium and electrons into enough energy to propel the car hundreds of kilometers, again and again, without tailpipe emissions. But when the battery comes to the end of its life, its green benefits fade. If it ends up in a landfill, its cells can release problematic toxins, including heavy metals. And recycling the battery can be a hazardous business, warns materials scientist Dana Thompson of the University of Leicester. Cut too deep into a Tesla cell, or in the wrong place, and it can short-circuit, combust, and release toxic fumes.

That’s just one of the many problems confronting researchers, including Thompson, who are trying to tackle an emerging problem: how to recycle the millions of electric vehicle (EV) batteries that manufacturers expect to produce over the next few decades. Current EV batteries “are really not designed to be recycled,” says Thompson, a research fellow at the Faraday Institution, a research center focused on battery issues in the United Kingdom.

That wasn’t much of a problem when EVs were rare. But now the technology is taking off. Several carmakers have said they plan to phase out combustion engines within a few decades, and industry analysts predict at least 145 million EVs will be on the road by 2030, up from just 11 million last year. “People are starting to realize this is an issue,” Thompson says.

Governments are inching toward requiring some level of recycling. In 2018, China imposed new rules aimed at promoting the reuse of EV battery components. The European Union is expected to finalize its first requirements this year. In the United States, the federal government has yet to advance recycling mandates, but several states, including California—the nation’s largest car market—are exploring setting their own rules.

Materials scientist Dana Thompson develops solvents for extracting valuable metals from spent car batteries. (Source: FARADAY INSTITUTION)

Read the full article here.

*

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

Featured image: A shredded electric vehicle battery can yield recyclable metals, but it is often cheaper for batterymakers to use new materials. (Source: ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY)

If You’ve Had COVID, Please Don’t Get Vaccinated

May 24th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

An international survey of 2,002 people found that people who had previously had COVID-19 experienced “significantly increased incidence and severity” of side effects after the COVID-19 vaccine

Dr. Hooman Noorchashm has repeatedly warned the FDA that “clear and present danger” exists for those who have had COVID-19 and subsequently get vaccinated

At issue are viral antigens that remain in the body after a person is naturally infected; the immune response reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine may trigger inflammation in tissues where the viral antigens exist

The inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain may be particularly at risk of such inflammation and damage, which could lead to major thromboembolic complications

Noorchashm believes that people should be screened for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins prior to COVID-19 vaccination, while vaccination should be delayed for people with symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19 infections, as well as those who have recently recovered from the virus

*

In their race to vaccinate the entire U.S. adult population, health officials are urging everyone to get a COVID shot, regardless of whether or not they’ve already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and spending billions of dollars in taxpayer funded propaganda to convince people to get the vaccine.

This is an important distinction, however, with at least one scientist warning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that “clear and present danger” exists for those who have had COVID-19 and subsequently get vaccinated.

That scientist — Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a cardiac surgeon and patient advocate — warned the FDA that prescreening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins may reduce the risk of injuries and deaths following vaccination, as the vaccine may trigger an adverse immune response in those who have already been infected with the virus.1

Unfortunately, health agencies continue to assert that everyone should get vaccinated, even if they’ve already acquired natural immunity via previous infection.

CDC: Get Vaccinated Even if You’ve Had COVID

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention admits that it’s rare to get sick again if you’ve already had COVID-19. Despite this, they say those who have recovered from COVID-19 should still get vaccinated:2

“You should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19. That’s because experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19. Even if you have already recovered from COVID-19, it is possible — although rare — that you could be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 again.”

Your immune system is designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent. Upon recovery, you’re typically immune to that infectious agent. This is why, for instance, proof of prior diagnosis with chickenpox, measles and mumps is allowed instead of vaccination to enter most U.S. public schools3 — once you’ve had the disease and recovered, you’re immune.

If you’ve had COVID-19, you have some level of immunity against the virus. It’s unknown how long it lasts, just as it’s unknown how long protection from the vaccine lasts. According to the Public Health Agency of Sweden:4

“If you have had COVID-19, you have some protection against reinfection. This means that you are less likely to become infected and seriously ill, and less likely to infect others if you are exposed to the virus again.

Over time, the protection that you get after an infection wanes and there is an increased risk of getting infected again. At present, we estimate that the protection after having had COVID-19 lasts at least six months from the time of infection.”

People With Prior COVID Have More Vaccination Side Effects

An international survey of 2,002 people who had received a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine found that people who had previously had COVID-19 experienced “significantly increased incidence and severity” of side effects after the COVID-19 vaccine.5 Those who had previously had COVID-19 had a greater risk of experiencing any side effect, along with the following, specifically:

  • Fever
  • Flu-like illness
  • Local reactions
  • Breathlessness
  • Fatigue
  • Severe side effects leading to hospital care

The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were linked to a higher incidence of side effects compared to the viral vector-based COVID-19 vaccines, but the mRNA side effects tended to be milder, local reactions. Systemic reactions, such as anaphylaxis, flu-like illness and breathlessness, were more likely to occur with the viral vector COVID-19 vaccines.

According to the researchers, the findings should prompt health officials to reevaluate their vaccination recommendations for people who’ve had COVID-19:6

“People with prior COVID-19 exposure were largely excluded from the vaccine trials and, as a result, the safety and reactogenicity of the vaccines in this population have not been previously fully evaluated. For the first time, this study demonstrates a significant association between prior COVID19 infection and a significantly higher incidence and severity of self-reported side effects after vaccination for COVID-19.

Consistently, compared to the first dose of the vaccine, we found an increased incidence and severity of self-reported side effects after the second dose, when recipients had been previously exposed to viral antigen.

In view of the rapidly accumulating data demonstrating that COVID-19 survivors generally have adequate natural immunity for at least 6 months, it may be appropriate to re-evaluate the recommendation for immediate vaccination of this group.”

Surgeon Warns of Immunological Dangers, Blood Clots

Noorchashm has written multiple letters to the FDA, warning them that people should be screened for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins prior to COVID-19 vaccination. Without such screening, he wrote in one letter to the FDA, “this indiscriminate vaccination is a clear and present danger to a subset of the already infected.”7

He describes the case of 32-year-old Benjamin Goodman of New York, who died within one day of receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. “There will be many more in the coming months as we carelessly and indiscriminately vaccinate the already infected, millions a day … It is a near certainty,” he continued.8 At issue are viral antigens that remain in the body after a person is naturally infected.

The immune response reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine may trigger inflammation in tissues where the viral antigens are present. The inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain may be particularly at risk of such inflammation and damage.9 According to Noorchashm:10

“Most pertinently, when viral antigens are present in the vascular endothelium, and especially in elderly and frail with cardiovascular disease, the antigen specific immune response incited by the vaccine is almost certain to do damage to the vascular endothelium.

Such vaccine directed endothelial inflammation is certain to cause blood clot formation with the potential for major thromboembolic complications, at least in a subset of such patients. If a majority of younger more robust patients might tolerate such vascular injury from a vaccine immune response, many elderly and frail patients with cardiovascular disease will not.”

What’s more, Noorchashm quotes one of his previous medical school professors, who said, “the eyes do not see what the mind does not know.” In the case of a vaccine-induced antigen specific immune response, which may trigger thromboembolic complications 10 to 20 days after vaccination, including in those who may already be elderly and frail, the reaction isn’t likely to be registered as a vaccine-related adverse event.

Immediately Delay Vaccination for These Key Groups

In his repeated letters to the FDA, Noorchashm suggests that the FDA “immediately and at the very minimum” delay COVID-19 vaccination for people with symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19 infections, as well as those who have recently recovered from the virus.

Because so many cases are asymptomatic, he recommends clinicians “actively screen as many patients with high cardiovascular risk as is reasonably possible, in order to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2, prior to vaccinating them.”11 As it stands, Noorchashm points out that by ignoring what he believes to be an imminent risk for a sizable minority of people, the FDA’s credibility, and that of the mass vaccination campaign in general, is at grave risk:12

“Can you imagine if the public, without having received any real warning from FDA, becomes aware of an increasing number of such vascular/thromboembolic complications? What do you suppose will happen to the level of ‘vaccine hesitancy’ then?

And, what kind of accountability do you think the public will demand from our experts and federal regulators — especially if they knew, or should have known, that this immunological danger might exist?

The aim of benefiting the majority of our public and saving the nation from this pandemic by quick and aggressive vaccination is an ethically sound one — but where we know of real or likely risks of harm and mortality, we ought to mitigate the risks to those in potential harm’s way.

So doing is the only reasonable, ethical, and likely legal option you can pursue as public health regulators — for in America, we no longer sacrifice the lives of minority subsets of people for the benefit of the majority.”

At least 62 cases of myocarditis, or heart inflammation, in people who received the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine are being investigated by the Israel Health Ministry. Most of the cases occurred in men under the age of 30 who were in good health, and two deaths have been reported as a result.13,14

No Proof of Efficacy in People Who’ve Had COVID-19

In a high-profile report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 15 scientists stated that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more among people with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.15

But according to Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky, “That sentence is wrong. There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and actually there’s no proof in the Moderna trial either.”16 In France, the health body la Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) does not recommend routinely vaccinating those who have already recovered from COVID-19, stating:17

“At this stage, there is no need to systematically vaccinate people who have already developed a symptomatic form of Covid-19 unless they wish to do so following a decision shared with the doctor and within a minimum period of time. 3 months from the onset of symptoms.”

When Massie realized that vaccination didn’t change the risk of infection among people who’ve had COVID-19, he was alarmed and contacted the CDC directly, recording his calls.

“It [the CDC report] says the exact opposite of what the data says. They’re giving people the impression that this vaccine will save your life, or save you from suffering, even if you’ve already had the virus and recovered, which has not been demonstrated in either the Pfizer or the Moderna trial,” Massey says in a “Full Measure” report.18

CDC Allows Misinformation to Continue

Massie spoke with multiple officials on numerous occasions, who acknowledged the misinformation and implied that it would be fixed.19,20 It wasn’t until Massie’s final call with the CDC, to deputy director Dr. Anne Schuchat, that it was acknowledged that a correction was necessary.

“As you note correctly, there is not sufficient analysis to show that in the subset of only the people with prior infection, there’s efficacy. So, you’re correct that that sentence is wrong and that we need to make a correction of it. I apologize for the delay,” Schuchat said. January 29, 2021, the CDC did finally issue a correction, which reads:21

“Consistent high efficacy (≥92%) was observed across age, sex, race, and ethnicity categories and among persons with underlying medical conditions. Efficacy was similarly high in a secondary analysis including participants both with or without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Instead of fixing the error, Massie believes the wording just phrases the mistake in a different way and still misleadingly suggests vaccination is effective for those previously infected.22 Meanwhile, increasing numbers of breakthrough COVID-19 cases among the fully vaccinated are being reported, which the CDC has been reporting.

As of April 26, 2021, there have been 9,245 reported cases of COVID-19 in fully vaccinated individuals, including 132 deaths.23 Note this is not total deaths from the vaccine, which is rapidly approaching 4,000.

However, May 14, 2021, the CDC announced it will no longer report breakthrough cases unless they involve hospitalization or death,24 which will obscure the actual number of breakthrough cases occurring, artificially driving down rates and making the vaccines appear to be more effective.

The CDC also changed recommendations on PCR tests for the fully vaccinated, which will further drive down the appearance of breakthrough cases by making them less likely to “test positive.”

PCR tests recommended by the WHO used to be set to 45 cycle thresholds (CTs),25 yet the scientific consensus has long been that anything over 35 CTs renders the test useless,26 as the accuracy will be extremely low, with false positives artificially driving up case numbers.

In April 2021, the CDC recommended the CT be lowered to 28, but only for people who are fully vaccinated.27 Under this guidance, someone with a CT of 30 would not be considered to have COVID-19 if they were fully vaccinated, but if they were not, then their test would be “positive.”

This is beyond obvious that they are rigging the system to create data that fit their fake narrative, which is pushing the entire population to get a vaccine they don’t need, will harm or kill them and which will generate tens of billions of dollars in annual recurring revenue for the drug companies.

In return, the drug companies have no legal risk for any complications, adverse effects or deaths and are given billions of dollars in free advertising from the U.S. taxpayers to get this dangerous gene therapy.

The Big Lie — Natural Infection Isn’t Adequate

Why is it that the media continue to promote the fake narrative that natural immunity — the type acquired by getting infected by and recovering from a virus — isn’t as powerful or long-lasting as vaccine-acquired immunity?28,29 Do you think it might be to support vaccine sales?

Did they forget that COVID-19 vaccines aren’t intended to be a long-term solution, and have NEVER been shown to provide immunity benefits? The original warp speed test only showed reduced symptoms.

Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla exacerbated this charade by stating that not only will people need a third booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine within 12 months of being fully vaccinated, but annual vaccination will probably be necessary.30

Robust natural immunity has been demonstrated, however, for at least eight months after infection in more than 95% of people who have recovered from COVID-19.31,32 A Nature study also demonstrated robust natural immunity in people who recovered from SARS and SARS-CoV-2.33

There continue to be many unanswered questions surrounding COVID-19 vaccines, many of which most of the public has never heard of, such as imprinting and Th2 immunopathology. If you choose to get a COVID-19 vaccine, you’re participating in a giant experiment, acting as a guinea pig to see what will ultimately bear out.

That being said, if you or someone you love have received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it. Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do three things:34

  1. If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
  2. Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
  3. Report the injury on the CHD website

*

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 Medium February 15, 2021

2 U.S. CDC, COVID-19 Vaccination FAQs April 30, 2021

3 IDPH, Minimum Immunization Requirements Entering a Child Care Facility or School in Illinois, Fall 2020

4 Public Health Agency of Sweden February 3, 2021

5 medRxiv March 8, 2021

6 PJ Media May 18, 2021

7, 8 The Defender March 24, 2021

9, 32 The Defender April 5, 2021

10, 11, 12 The Defender January 28, 2021

13 Health April 26, 2021

14 Newsweek April 26, 2021

15 MMWR December 18, 2020

16 WWMT January 29, 2021

17 Nitag Documentation 2021

18, 19, 20, 22 Full Measure January 31, 2021

21 CDC MMWR Erratum January 29, 2021 / 70(4);144

23, 24 CDC, Breakthrough Cases

25 WHO.int Diagnostic detection of Wuhan Coronavirus 2019 by real-time RT-PCR, January 13, 2020 (PDF)

26 The Vaccine Reaction September 29, 2020

27 The Defender May 7, 2021

28 MedPage Today May 5, 2021

29 Lansing State Journal May 6, 2021

30 CNBC April 15, 2021

31 Science. 2021 Feb 5;371(6529):eabf4063. doi: 10.1126/science.abf4063. Epub 2021 Jan 6

33 Nature July 15, 2020

34 The Defender January 25, 2021

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney and the Rule of Law

May 24th, 2021 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

All Global Research articles 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 could not accuse US Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming of having a sense of irony. For some time, she has felt her party to be the hostage of a ghoulish monster who refuses to be slayed.  And she fears her party has fallen out of love for the rule of law.

In being ousted from the third spot in the leadership of the Republican Conference in the House, Cheney has found a new morality. In her floor speech, she called Donald Trump’s canard of a stolen election a “threat America has never seen before.”  Opposing Trump’s interpretation of the result was a “duty”.

“I will not sit back and watch in silence, while others lead our party down a path that abandons the rule of law and joins in the former president’s crusade to undermine our democracy.” 

After her speech, she told reporters that she would “do everything” she could “to ensure that the former president never gets anywhere near the Oval Office. 

Cheney’s seemingly shabby treatment led such papers as the Washington Post to remark that truth was again under assault. “Truth is the issue upon which Cheney has made her stand – truth and her unwillingness to be silent for the supposed good of the team.” 

Peter Wehner, who served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes, saw the event as a “confirmation that the Republican party is diseased and dangerous, increasingly subversive and illiberal”.  Eric Lutz, writing in Vanity Fair, called the Cheney display “defiant”, laying “bare the cowardice of her colleagues who, with their vote on Wednesday, affirmed what had long been clear: The GOP is the cult of Trump now, and fealty the price of admission.”

This is gruesomely fascinating on a few levels, given that Cheney comes from a family rather snotty about such concepts as the rule of law, verisimilitude and the Constitution.  Her father Dick Cheney, the Vice Presidential dark operator in the administration of George W. Bush, was not exactly strong on such ideas, and proved rather subversive and illiberal in a number of ways. Old Dick, along with his lawyer David Addington and John Yoo of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, did much to read executive power in a manner most imperial in nature.

For Dick Cheney, US executive power needed to be restored after the damaging effects of Watergate and the Vietnam War.  The time that followed, he lamented to reporters on Air Force Two in 2005, proved to be “the nadir of the modern presidency in terms of authority and legitimacy”. 

It is true to say that Trump also preferred a broad reading of executive power, one all too readily articulated by former Attorney General William Barr. But Cheney, Addington and Yoo were responsible for views that justified the bypassing and defanging of Congress, wiretapping of US citizens, torture of terrorist suspects, the establishment of military commissions, the breaching of international treaties and the waging of illegal wars.  Such conduct has caused more than a smattering of commentary urging the prosecution of both Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush for a range of offences in both domestic and international law.   

It would be churlish to claim that a father’s blackened record should somehow compromise that of his daughter’s.  But the co-authored father and daughter work Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America repeats the old neoconservative interventionist sins that were so important in laying the ground for a Trump victory in 2016.  Father Dick and Daughter Liz supply an apologia for such murderous disasters as Iraq while piling into President Barack Obama whom they stop short of accusing of treason.  “The touchstone of his ideology – that America is to blame, and her power must be restrained – requires a wilful blindness about what America has done in the world.”   

In 2009, Liz Cheney, along with fellow neoconservative Bill Kristol, co-founded Keep America Safe, an outfit steeped in a tattered worldview that proceeded to leave many Americans behind.  As Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic noted in a battering piece on Liz Cheney in 2013, “Most Americans understand that investing trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives in Iraq was a historic blunder.”  Not for Liz, who finds wars stirringly necessary.

Over the years, Rep. Cheney barely warranted a mention after securing the seat her father once occupied. As the third-ranking member of minority party leadership, she was a middleweight power with exaggerated expectations.  Then came President Trump.  The neoconservatives were outflanked.  Fires were lit, casting light upon her cause.  That cause, simple as ever, was an anti-Trump, using truth and democracy as crutches of polemical convenience. 

To date, Rep. Cheney is pursuing a cause of martyrdom that is, like many such causes, futile.  It was a martyrdom that was “well-planned”, as Republican political consultant Keith Naughton noted in The Hill.  “There are no reports she actually worked the GOP caucus, canvassing and counting heads.  Cheney didn’t fight back, she planned to lose.”  In losing, she hopes to rebuild a neoconservative base that has withered into oblivion.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

America’s Public Health System Is Utterly Corrupt

May 24th, 2021 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A sure sign of a country’s collapse is the open corruption of its public and private institutions.  When corruption no longer has to be hidden but can be openly flouted, the values and standards that comprised the country’s soul have eroded away.

Try to find an American institution that is not corrupt.  Even when presented with the Covid threat the US public health system could not rise above the greed for profit.  Effective cures, such as HCQ and Ivermectin were demonized and in many states prohibited.  Most Covid deaths are the result of non-treatment.  

Throughout the alleged “Covid Pandemic” regulatory agencies, health bureaucracies, medical associations, state governors, media, and Big Pharma have acted to prevent any alternative to a vaccine.

From day one the emphasis was on the profits from a vaccine.  To get people to submit to an experimental and untested vaccine required the absence of cures. To keep the road open only for a vaccine even supplements such as NAC, which has shown effectiveness as both preventative and treatment of Covid, has been challenged by the FDA in its use as a supplement.  In response, amazon.com, a major online marketer of dietary supplements removed NAC from its offerings. See this.

The generation of fear was essential to stampeeding people to line up to be vaccinated.  The fear was supplemented by threats of inability to travel, to attend sports events, to resume working at one’s job.  

A Covid test, known as PCR, was intentionally run at high [amplification threshold] cycles known to result in a very high percentage of false positives.  These false positives guaranteed a high infection rate that scared people silly.  Economic incentives were used for hospitals to report all deaths as Covid deaths, thus greatly exaggerating Covid’s mortality.

As you might have noticed, last winter had no reporting of flu cases as flu was added to the Covid statistics.

A number of reports have been published that the Covid vaccine does not prevent some vaccinated people from coming down with Covid.  Other reports say that vaccinated people become spreaders of Covid.  There are also reports of a large number of deaths and injuries from the Covid vaccine. See this.

In order to suppress the facts and keep the Covid vaccine selling, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), which supported running the PCR test at high cycles in order to inflate the number of Covid cases, runs the PCR test at much lower cycles in the case of infected vaccinated people in order to minimize the number of vaccinated people who came down with Covid. 

To further create an artificial picture of the vaccine’s effectiveness, asymptomatic and mild infections are excluded from the reporting of vaccinated people who catch Covid.  Only vaccinated people who catch Covid who have to be hospitalized or die from Covid are counted among the people who caught Covid despite being vaccinated.  However, unvaccinated people with only minor symptoms or false positives from a high cycle PCR test are added to the number of Covid cases. See this.

See this also.

This is obvious and blatant manipulation of statistics in order to scare people about Covid while reassuring them about the vaccine’s effectiveness. Overstating the number of cases among the unvaccinated while simultaneously understating the number of people who caught Covid despite being vaccinated is shameless and protects the contrived picture of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine.

The falsification of statistics in order to produce massive public fear and the prevention of treatment with known safe and effective cures in order to maximize death rates produced billions of dollars in profits for Big Pharma and associated industries, with Moderna’s CEO topping the list of nine new billionaires made rich from the rollout of Covid vaccines.  These billionaires rode to their riches on the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people who died from an enforced lack of treatment —mandated deaths to protect vaccine profits. See this.

Will anything be done about this extraordinary corruption of the American public health 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 The Freedom Articles

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Here is something that can be said with great confidence. It is racist – antisemitic, if you prefer – to hold Jews, individually or collectively, accountable for Israel’s crimes. Jews are not responsible for Israel’s war crimes, even if the Israeli state presumes to implicate Jews in its crimes by falsely declaring it represents all Jews in the world.

Very obviously, it is not the fault of Jews that Israel commits war crimes, or that Israel uses Jews collectively as a political shield, exploiting sensitivities about the historical suffering of Jews at the hands of non-Jews to immunise itself from international opprobrium.

But here is something that can be said with equal certainty. Israel’s apologists – whether Jews or non-Jews – cannot deny all responsibility for Israel’s war crimes when they actively aid and abet Israel in committing those crimes, or when they seek to demonise and silence Israel’s critics so that those war crimes can be pursued in a more favourable political climate.

Such apologists – which sadly seems to include many of the community organisations in Britain claiming to represent Jews – want to have their cake and eat it.

They cannot defend Israel uncritically as it commits war crimes or seek legislative changes to assist Israel in committing those war crimes – whether it be Israel’s latest pummelling of civilians in Gaza, or its executions of unarmed Palestinians protesting 15 years of Israel’s blockade of the coastal enclave – and accuse anyone who criticises them for doing so of being an antisemite.

But this is exactly what has been going on. And it is only getting worse.

Upsurge in antisemitism? 

As a ceasefire was implemented late last week, bringing a temporary let-up in the bombing of Gaza by Israel, pro-Israel Jewish groups in the UK were once again warning of an upsurge of antisemitism they attributed to a rapid growth in the number of protests against Israel.

These groups have the usual powerful allies echoing their claims. British prime minister Boris Johnson met community leaders in Downing Street on Thursday pledging, as Jewish News reported, “to continue to support the community in the face of rising antisemitism attacks”.

Those Jewish leaders included Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, a supporter of Johnson who played a part in helping him win the 2019 election by renewing the evidence-free antisemitism smears against the Labour party days before voting. It also included the Campaign Against Antisemitism, which was founded specifically to whitewash Israel’s crimes during its 2014 bombardment of Gaza and has ever since been vilifying all Palestinian solidarity activism as antisemitism.

In attendance too was the Jewish Leadership Council, an umbrella organisation for Britain’s main Jewish community groups. In an article in Israel’s Haaretz newspaper on this supposed rise in antisemitism in the UK, the JLC’s vice-president, Daniel Korski, set out the ridiculous, self-serving narrative these community groups are trying to peddle, with seemingly ever greater success among the political and media elite.

Popular outrage over Gaza 

Korski expressed grave concern about the proliferation of demonstrations in the UK designed to halt Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. During 11 days of attacks, more than 260 Palestinians were killed, including at least 66 children. Israel’s precision air strikes targeted more than a dozen hospitals, including the only Covid clinic in Gaza, dozens of schools, several media centres, and left tens of thousands of Palestinians homeless.

The sense of popular outrage at the Israeli onslaught was only heightened by the fact that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had clearly engineered a confrontation with Hamas at the outset to serve his immediate personal interests: preventing Israeli opposition parties from uniting to oust him from power.

In his naked personal calculations, Palestinian civilians were sacrificed to help Netanyahu hold on to power and improve his chances of evading jail as he stands trial on corruption charges.

But for Korski and the other community leaders attending the meeting with Johnson, the passionate demonstrations in solidarity with Palestinians are their main evidence for a rise in antisemitism.

‘Free Palestine’ chants 

These community organisations cite a few incidents that undoubtedly qualify as antisemitism – some serious, some less so. They include shouting “Free Palestine” at individuals because they are identifiable as Jews, something presumably happening mostly to the religious ultra-Orthodox.

But these Jewish leaders’ chief concern, they make clear, is the growing public support for Palestinians in the face of intensifying Israeli aggression.

Quoting David Rich, of the Community Security Trust, another Jewish organisation hosted by Johnson, the Haaretz newspaper reports that “what has really shaken the Jewish community … ‘is that demos are being held all over the country every day about this issue’ [Israel’s bombardment of Gaza].”

Revealingly, it seems that when Jewish community leaders watch TV screens showing demonstrators chant “Free Palestine”, they feel it as a personal attack – as though they themselves are being accosted in the street.

One doesn’t need to be a Freudian analyst to wonder whether this reveals something troubling about their inner emotional life: they identify so completely with Israel that even when someone calls for Palestinians to have equal rights with Israelis they perceive it as a collective attack on Jews, as antisemitism.

Exception for Israel 

Then Korski gets to the crux of the argument: “As Jews we are proud of our heritage and at the same time in no way responsible for the actions of a government thousands of miles away, no matter our feelings or connection to it.”

But the logic of that position is simply untenable. You cannot tie your identity intimately to a state that systematically commits war crimes, you cannot vilify demonstrations against those war crimes as antisemitism, you cannot use your position as a “Jewish community leader” to make such allegations more credible, and you cannot exploit your influence with world leaders to try to silence protests against Israel and then say you are “in no way responsible” for the actions of that government.

If you use your position to prevent Israel from being subjected to scrutiny over allegations of war crimes, if you seek to manipulate the public discourse with claims of antisemitism to create a more favourable environment in which those war crimes can be committed, then some of the blame for those war crimes rubs off on you.

That is how responsibility works in every other sphere of life. What Israel’s apologists are demanding is an exception for Israel and for themselves.

Lobby with the UK’s ear 

In another revealing observation seeking to justify claims of an upsurge in antisemitism, Korski adds: “We don’t see the same kind of outpouring of emotion when it comes to the Rohingya or the Uighurs or Syria, and it makes a lot of Jews feel this is about them [as Jews].”

But there are many reasons why there aren’t equally large demonstrations in the UK against the suffering of the Rohingya and the Uighurs – reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism.

The oppressors of the Rohingya and the Uighurs, unlike Israel, are not being generously armed by the British government or given diplomatic cover by Britain or being given preferential trade agreements by Britain.

But equally importantly, the states oppressing the Rohingya and Uighurs – unlike Israel – don’t have active, well-funded lobbies in the UK, with the ear of the prime minister. China and Myanmar – unlike Israel – don’t have UK lobbies successfully labelling criticism of them as racism. Unlike Israel, they don’t have lobbies that openly seek to influence elections to protect them from criticism. Unlike Israel, they don’t have lobbies that work with Britain to introduce measures to assist them in carrying out their oppression.

The president of the Board of Deputies, Marie van der Zyl, for example, pressed Johnson at the meeting this week to classify all branches of Hamas, not just its military wing, as a terrorist organisation. That is Israel’s wet dream. Such a decision would make it even less likely that Britain would be in a position to officially distance itself from Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, where Hamas runs the government, and even more likely it would join Israel in declaring Gaza’s schools, hospitals and government departments all legitimate targets for Israeli air strikes.

Pure projection 

If you are lobbying to get special favours for Israel, particularly favours to help it commit war crimes, you don’t also get to wash your hands of those war crimes. You are directly implicated in them.

David Hirsch, an academic at the University of London who has been closely connected to efforts to weaponise antisemitism against critics of Israel, especially in the Labour party under its previous leader Jeremy Corbyn, also tries to play this trick.

He tells Haaretz that antisemitism is supposedly “getting worse” because Palestinian solidarity activists have been giving up on a two-state solution. “There used to be a struggle in Palestine solidarity between a politics of peace – two states living side by side – and a politics of denouncing one side as essentially evil and hoping for its total defeat.”

But what Hirsch is doing is pure projection: he is suggesting Palestinian solidarity activists are “antisemites” – his idea of evil – because they have been forced by Israel to abandon their long-favoured cause of a two-state solution. That is only because successive Israeli governments have refused to negotiate any kind of peace deal with the most moderate Palestinian leadership imaginable under Mahmoud Abbas – one that has eagerly telegraphed its desire to collaborate with Israel, even calling “security coordination” with the Israeli army “sacred”.

A two-state solution is dead because Israel made it dead not because Palestinian solidarity activists are more extreme or more antisemitic.

In calling to “Free Palestine”, activists are not demanding Israel’s “total defeat” – unless Hirsch and Jewish community organisations themselves believe that Palestinians cannot be free from Israeli oppression and occupation until Israel suffers such a “total defeat”. Hirsch’s claim tells us nothing about Palestinian solidarity activists, but it does tell us a lot about what is really motivating these Jewish community organisations.

It is these pro-Israel lobbyists, it seems, more than Palestinian solidarity activists, who cannot imagine Palestinians living in dignity under Israeli rule. Is that because they understand only too well what Israel and its political ideology of Zionism truly represent, and that what is required of Palestinians for “peace” is absolute and permanent submission?

Better informed 

Similarly, Rich, of the Community Security Trust, says of Palestinian solidarity activists: “Even the moderates have become extremists.” What does this extremism – again presented by Jewish groups as antisemitism – consist of? “Now the movement [in solidarity with Palestinians] is dominated by the view that Israel is an apartheid, genocidal, settler-colonialist state.”

Or in other words, these pro-Israel Jewish groups claim there has been a surge in antisemitism because Palestinian solidarity activists are being influenced and educated by human rights organisations, like Human Rights Watch and Israel’s B’Tselem. Both recently wrote reports classifying Israel as an apartheid state, in the occupied territories and inside Israel’s recognised borders. Activists are not becoming more extreme, they are becoming better informed.

And in making the case for a supposed surge in antisemitism, Rich offers another inadvertently revealing insight. He says Jewish children are suffering from online “abuse” – antisemitism – because they find it increasingly hard to participate on social media.

“Teenagers are much quicker to join social movements; we’ve just had Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, #MeToo – now Jewish kids find all their friends are joining this [Palestinian solidarity] movement where they don’t feel welcome or they are singled out because they’re Jewish.”

Fancifully, Rich is arguing that Jewish children raised in Zionist families and communities that have taught them either explicitly or implicitly that Jews in Israel have superior rights to Palestinians are being discriminated against because their unexamined ideas of Jewish supremacy do not fit with a pro-Palestinian movement predicated on equality.

This is as preposterous as it would have been, during the Jim Crow era, for white supremacist Americans to have complained of racism because their children were being made to feel out of place in civil rights forums.

Such assertions would be laughable were they not so dangerous.

Demonised as antisemites 

Zionist supporters of Israel are trying to turn logic and the world upside down. They are inverting reality. They are projecting their own racist, zero-sum assumptions about Israel on to Palestinian solidarity activists, those who support equal rights for Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East.

As they did with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition, these Jewish groups are twisting the meaning of antisemitism, skewing it from a fear or hatred of Jews to any criticism of Israel that makes pro-Israel Jews feel uncomfortable.

As we watch these arguments being amplified uncritically by leading politicians and journalists, remember too that it was the only major politician to have demurred from this nonsensical narrative, Jeremy Corbyn, who became the main target – and victim – of these antisemitism smears.

Now these pro-Israel Jewish groups want to treat us all like Corbyn, demonising us as antisemites unless we fall silent even as Israel once again brutalises Palestinians.

*

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

This essay first appeared on Jonathan Cook’s blog.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: ISRAELI BORDER POLICE OPERATING IN THE CITY OF LYDDA (LOD), MAY 11, 2021. (PHOTO: TWITTER/@IL_POLICE)

All Global Research articles 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 the Swedish Public Health Agency, PCR technology cannot distinguish between viruses capable of infecting cells and viruses that have been neutralized in the immune system. As a result, these tests “cannot be used to determine whether someone is contagious or not.” They emphasize what many other experts in the field have been emphasizing during the entire pandemic, that,

“RNA from the virus can often be detected for weeks (sometimes months) after the illness but does not mean that you are still contagious. There are also several  scientific studies that suggest that the contagion of COVID-19 is greatest at the disease period.”

Even if RNA is detected at anytime, this does not mean you are infectious and capable of infecting others.

This is true, PCR tests can be positive for up to 100 days after an exposure to the virus. PCR tests do nothing more than confirm the presence of fragments of viral RNA of the target SARS CO-V2 virus in someone’s nose. While a person with COVID-19 is infectious for a one-to-two week period, non-viable (harmless) viral SARS CO-V2 fragments remain in the nose and can be detected by a PCR test for up to 100 days after exposure.

A recent article published in The Lancet medical journal explains that PCR tests can be “positive” for up to five times longer than the time an infected person is actually infectious. They explain that up to 75% of “positive” individuals are most likely post-infectious.

As a result the Swedish government recommends assessing COVID infections, and freedom from infections,

based on stable clinical improvement with freedom from fever for at least two days and that at least seven days have past since the onset of symptoms. For those who have had more pronounced symptoms, at least 14 days after the illness and for the very sickest, individual assessment by the treating doctor.”

Even if and when RNA from the the virus is detected, which the PCR test does quite well, whether or not a sample is actually infectious (containing a viable virus, capable of replicating) needs to be confirmed by lab culture. Only 44% of the “positive” samples using a Ct of 18 returned a viable lab culture, according to Dr. Jared Bullard, a paediatric infectious disease specialist and a current witness for the Manitoba government. The Manitoba government is being sued for the measures they’ve taken to combat COVID.

What is a Ct? It refers to cycle threshold. The PCR tests are not designed to detect and identify active infectious disease. Instead, it identifies genetic material, be it partial, alive, or even dead. PCR amplifies this material in samples to find traces of COVID-19.  If the sample taken from a nasal swab contains a large amount of COVID virus it will react positive after only a few cycles of amplification, while a smaller sample with small amounts of genetic material will require more cycles to amplify enough of the genetic material to get a positive result. Since the PCR test amplifies traces of COVID-19 through cycles, a lower number of cycles needed to get a positive result suggests the presence of a higher viral load for the person being tested and therefore a higher contagion potential.

An article published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that among positive PCR samples with a cycle count over 35, only 3 percent of the samples showed viral replication. This can be interpreted as, if someone tests positive via PCR when a Ct of 35 or higher is used,  the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%. In this case false positive means a person is not infectious or capable of transmitting the virus to others. (source)

Dr. Anthony Fauci himself told This Week in Virology in July 2020, “If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-competent are minuscule.” Why then has our national testing standard never reflected this? PCR providers should work with other labs to perform a random viral culture, as mentioned by Bullard above, on those who received positive results, to validate their tests in terms of being an indicator of infectiousness.

There are many questions to be asked here. Labs are not supplying Ct information associated with each test. In some cases should labs be counting “positive” results as “cases” when they come from a high Ct number? We just found out that high Ct numbers around 30+ can often be non infectious or incapable of spreading the virus, this nuance is important considering public health policy is being decided off of cases alone.

What percentage of cases have been a result of a lower cycle threshold, let’s say below 20? These would be the cases, at least some of them, that would be more accurate in identifying a person who is actually infectious. If these tests, as the Swedish government says, cannot be used properly to identify an infectious person, even at a low Ct why haven’t we just put measures in place that apply to symptomatically sick people?

Manitoba has confirmed that it utilizes Ct’s of up to 40, and even 45 in some cases. It’s an important question given the fact that health policy has been based on the number of cases present in a region.

Here in Ontario, Canada outdoor amenities like golf courses, basketball courts, tennis courts, parks and more have been closed based on case counts, even though COVID spreading outdoors is extremely unlikely.

Indoors, infected individuals who are asymptomatic are more than an order of magnitude less likely to spread the disease compared to symptomatic COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis of 54 studies from around the world found that within households – where none of the safeguards that restaurants are required to apply are typically applied – symptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 18 percent of instances, while asymptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 0.7 percent of instances.

This is why many academics have urged authorities to stop the testing of asymptomatic individuals. Combine this fact with the fact that the chances of asymptomatic spread is low, and with the fact that there is a lack of clarity around PCR testing, and we see why doctors are bring up the question.

Health policy has been guided and dictated by the number of “cases.” It’s why lockdowns and mask mandates have been put in place regardless of the damage they cause and have caused. What if the majority of “positive” cases during this pandemic have been people who are not capable of spreading the disease – who are not even sick? It would represent an astronomical mistake on the part of multiple governments and the World Health Organization (WHO). Should we not be focusing on perhaps limiting the spread via symptomatic people, instead of punishing and restricting the rights and freedoms of people who are not sick?

This has been an issue for quite some time, as far back as 2007, Gina Kolata published an article in the New York Times about how declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in a disaster. The article was titled Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t. You can read that full story here if the previous link doesn’t work.

*

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

Featured image is from Collective Evolution

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sweden Says PCR Tests “Cannot be Used to Determine Whether Someone Is Contagious”
  • 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 US Center for Disease Control (CDC) is altering its practices of data logging and testing for “Covid19” in order to make it seem the experimental gene-therapy “vaccines” are effective at preventing the alleged disease.

They made no secret of this, announcing the policy changes on their website in late April/early May, (though naturally without admitting the fairly obvious motivation behind the change).

The trick is in their reporting of what they call “breakthrough infections” – that is people who are fully “vaccinated” against Sars-Cov-2 infection, but get infected anyway.

Essentially, Covid19 has long been shown – to those willing to pay attention – to be an entirely created pandemic narrative built on two key factors:

  1. False-postive tests. The unreliable PCR test can be manipulated into reporting a high number of false-positives by altering the cycle threshold (CT value)
  2. Inflated Case-count. The incredibly broad definition of “Covid case”, used all over the world, lists anyone who receives a positive test as a “Covid19 case”, even if they never experienced any symptoms.

Without these two policies, there would never have been an appreciable pandemic at all, and now the CDC has enacted two policy changes which means they no longer apply to vaccinated people.

Firstly, they are lowering their CT value when testing samples from suspected “breakthrough infections”.

From the CDC’s instructions for state health authorities on handling “possible breakthrough infections” (uploaded to their website in late April):

For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)

Throughout the pandemic, CT values in excess of 35 have been the norm, with labs around the world going into the 40s.

Essentially labs were running as many cycles as necessary to achieve a positive result, despite experts warning that this was pointless (even Fauci himself said anything over 35 cycles is meaningless).

But NOW, and only for fully vaccinated people, the CDC will only accept samples achieved from 28 cycles or fewer. That can only be a deliberate decision in order to decrease the number of “breakthrough infections” being officially recorded.

Secondly, asymptomatic or mild infections will no longer be recorded as “covid cases”.

That’s right. Even if a sample collected at the low CT value of 28 can be sequenced into the virus alleged to cause Covid19, the CDC will no longer be keeping records of breakthrough infections that don’t result in hospitalisation or death.

From their website:

As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance. Previous case counts, which were last updated on April 26, 2021, are available for reference only and will not be updated moving forward.

Just like that, being asymptomatic – or having only minor symptoms – will no longer count as a “Covid case” but only if you’ve been vaccinated.

The CDC has put new policies in place which effectively created a tiered system of diagnosis. Meaning, from now on, unvaccinated people will find it much easier to be diagnosed with Covid19 than vaccinated people.

Consider…

Person A has not been vaccinated. They test positive for Covid using a PCR test at 40 cycles and, despite having no symptoms, they are officially a “covid case”.

Person B has been vaccinated. They test positive at 28 cycles, and spend six weeks bedridden with a high fever. Because they never went into a hospital and didn’t die they are NOT a Covid case.

Person C, who was also vaccinated, did die. After weeks in hospital with a high fever and respiratory problems. Only their positive PCR test was 29 cycles, so they’re not officially a Covid case either.

The CDC is demonstrating the beauty of having a “disease” that can appear or disappear depending on how you measure it.

To be clear: If these new policies had been the global approach to “Covid” since December 2019, there would never have been a pandemic at all.

If you apply them only to the vaccinated, but keep the old rules for the unvaccinated, the only possible result can be that the official records show “Covid” is much more prevalent among the latter than the former.

This is a policy designed to continuously inflate one number, and systematically minimise the other.

What is that if not an obvious and deliberate act of deception?

*

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

How We Got Omnipotent Government

May 24th, 2021 by Jacob G. Hornberger

All Global Research articles 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 all been born and raised under a government that wields the power of assassination. State-sponsored assassinations at the hands of the U.S. government — and specifically the Pentagon and the CIA — have become a rather ho-hum affair. They have become fully accepted as part and parcel of American life. 

Yet, when we stop to reflect on this phenomenon, we can’t help but come to the realization that this is truly an extraordinary power. It is an omnipotent power that enables the federal government to snuff out a person’s life simply on a determination that he is a communist, a terrorist, a threat to “national security,” or whatever other designation the government establishes.

The Framers and the American people in 1789 were totally opposed to living under a government that wielded the power of assassination. Don’t forget, after all, that after the break from England, Americans had lived under the Articles of Confederation for some ten years. Under the Articles, the federal government’s powers were so weak that it didn’t even have the power to tax, much less the power to assassinate.

That’s the way our American ancestors wanted it. They believed that the biggest threat to their freedom and well-being lay not with some foreign regime but rather from their very own government. That’s why they chose to live under a government with very few and very limited powers. In doing so, they felt safer and more secure.

When the delegates met in Philadelphia in what became known as the Constitutional Convention, it was with the purpose of simple amending the Articles to make the system work more efficiently. Instead, they came up with a proposal for a different type of governmental system — a limited-government republic — which would replace the Articles. 

The American people were leery because the federal government under this new system would have more powers, including the power to tax. They were concerned that this new government would end up destroying their freedom and their well-being.

But proponents of the Constitution assured Americans that this would not be a government that wielded general powers — that is, powers that would enable federal officials to do whatever they wanted in the best interests of the nation. Instead, its powers would be limited to the few powers enumerated in the Constitution itself.

The American people were especially concerned about the power of assassination. The last thing they wanted was to live under a government that wielded the power to snuff out people’s lives for arbitrary reasons. In fact, if Americans had been told that this new federal government would wield the power of assassination, they never would have approved the deal. They would instead have continued operating under the Articles of Confederation.

Americans ended up approving the deal and accepting the new government under the assumption that its powers would be limited to those enumerated in the Constitution, which did not include the power of assassination.

To ensure that federal officials got the message, however, Americans demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights, which included an express prohibition against assassination within the Fifth Amendment, which reads in part: “No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”

Due process of law is a term that stretches all the way back to Magna Carta in the year 1215. Over many centuries of resistance by British subjects against their own kings, due process came to encompass two principles: notice and trial. 

Thus, under the Fifth Amendment before the federal government could assassinate someone, it would be required to provide him with formal notice of the offense for which they wish to assassinate him and then guarantee him a trial to determine whether he in fact was guilty of committing the offense. 

Notice something important about the Fifth Amendment: Its protections apply to everyone, not just American citizens.

With the Sixth Amendment, the accused could elect to have a jury of ordinary citizens, rather than a judge or tribunal, determine his guilt or innocence. Our American ancestors simply didn’t trust judges or tribunals to make that decision. 

Since a jury’s verdict of acquittal was final and non-appealable, juries were also empowered with the ability to judge the law itself in criminal cases. If they found the purported offense unconscionable, they could elect to acquit even if the accused had actually committed it, in which case there was nothing the judge or the government could do about it. The accused would walk out of the courtroom a free person.

After World War II, the federal government was converted into a third type of governmental system — a national-security state. Under this type of government, the federal government — specifically the CIA and the Pentagon — acquired the omnipotent power of assassination. 

The conversion to a national-security state was justified under the rubric of the Cold War. The idea was that since the Soviet Union and the communist world were able to operate with omnipotent powers, including the power of assassination, the only way to prevent America from being conquered by the communists would be to adopt their same type of governmental structure — a national-security state, which came with the omnipotent power of assassination. 

The conversion to a national-security state was done through legislation, not through constitutional amendment. Nonetheless, owing to the overwhelming and ever-growing power of the national-security establishment — i.e., the military, the CIA, and the NSA — the legislative conversion to a national-security state was held to operate as a nullification of the Fifth Amendment. 

Today, the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s power of assassination is omnipotent. They are the final determiners of whether any particular person is going to have his life snuffed out. Their power of assassination is non-reviewable by any court in the land, including the nation’s highest court, the U.S. Supreme Court.

And that’s how we have come to live under omnipotent government, a type of governmental structure that wields the power to assassinate anyone it wants with impunity, simply by designating a person a communist, a terrorist, a threat to “national security,” or whatever. 

*

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

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

The creation of events that will promote irreconcilable interpretations in different interpretive communities has become a cottage industry for the rich and powerful. The radically divergent tales concerning mass shootings and attacks on minorities does wonders to exacerbate rifts between groups in the United States who might otherwise find common ground. These deep fissures in the basic assumptions about events render cooperation between these groups impossible.

Two common themes among conservatives are that attacks on minorities, and major mass shootings, are fake, false flag operations, and that climate change is a fraud used for the interests of the rich and powerful.

Let me start with a disclaimer. As no open, international investigations have ever been conducted concerning the incidents that I describe, my interpretation is by nature speculative. I would venture, however, that the critical points that I make, purposely are left out of coverage in both the mainstream media and in conspiracy blogs.

What is clear is that public intellectuals and reporters intentionally avoid difficult questions concerning these incidents, falling back on the argument that it is disrespectful of the families of those who were killed to suggest that the event was fabricated.

Two central cases are the Sandy Hook Elementary School (2012) shooting and the Boston Marathon Bombing (2013).

In the case of Sandy Hook, it is certainly possible that the attack was by a loner suffering from mental illness. Yet the vicious manner in which the mere suggestion that there might have been an incentive to create an event so as to increase police powers raises questions as to the motivations of those who deny even the possibility of a conspiracy.

In the case of the Boston Marathon Bombing, significant evidence exists that chronology of the bombing is inconsistent. The remarkably clean manner in which the entire event was pinned on Chechens who supposedly killed a police officer while trying to steal his gun sounds rather far-fetched. It is undeniable, however, that the Boston Marathon bombing was used to carry out an unprecedented lockdown of the entire city of Boston without any constitutional guarantees for citizens, or due process.

That event was a frightening adumberation of the lockdowns of the United States in the name of COVID19 seven years later.

The significance of the Boston Marathon as commemoration of Patriot’s Day (granted it was held a few days earlier that year), a critical day in Boston history when American militia opened fire on the British at Lexington, was completely ignored by the media when they pinned the story on two terrorist bombers.

Yet, it was on Patriot’s Day, April 19, 1993 that the Federal government brutally crushed the Branch Davidians at Waco, an assault that included a needless fire which left dead seventy-six people.

It was on Patriot’s Day, April 19, 1995, that the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was destroyed in an attack attributed to Timothy McVeigh—an incident about which many questions still remain unanswered.

In addition, two days after the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013, a massive explosion (employing ammonium nitrate just like the explosion in Oklahoma) near Waco, Texas, killed fifteen people. None of these facts were mentioned in the media.

The Las Vegas shootings (October 1, 2017) suggest a possible strategy behind these attacks. The suspect Stephen Craig Paddock supposedly killed more than 60 people in less than 15 minutes of shooting from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel. This fact alone raised serious questions among experts.

As he committed suicide we never learned Paddock’s version of the story.

The striking part of the story is the contradictory reports from eyewitnesses.

Although they have vanished from the internet, there were videos posted of both real shootings with live ammunition in one part of the hotel and in other areas the sounds of gunfire were broadcast over a speaker.

The intension of such an approach (which may well have been used in other incidents) might well have been to create divergent interpretations of the event from the start. Those who argued that there was a real shooting had facts to back up their claims. Those who suggested that the shootings were a fraud, a false flag, were given also solid evidence.

A similar game appears to be under way concerning climate change.

Scientific evidence for catastrophic climate change in terms of spreading deserts, the warming and the acidification of oceans, the spread of micro-plastics through the water and soil, and the long-term warming of the atmosphere is indisputable. The campaigns of fake scientists receiving corporate funding to dismiss this complex phenomenon has not succeeded in convincing the public.

Because the launch of the COVID19 operation is directly linked to climate change, specifically to the need to assure the wellbeing of the 0.5% at the expense of the rest of the Earth, in light of the impending collapse of the ecological system, the highest priority is to make sure that no political figure emerges who addresses both COVID19 fraud and the threat of climate change.

Climate change advocates covered by the media, and funded by foundations, must argue for big green projects led by financial institutions that Bill Gates and friends can control, and they must back the COVID 19 myth.

The conservatives claim that climate change is a conspiracy cooked up by the rich and powerful to oppress us and they present evidence in alternative news to support their perspective.

The assumption among the progressives, however, is that granted the scientific evidence for climate change, the conservatives must be “crazy” or “stupid.” Whether it is Rachel Maddow or Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks, or even socialist activists, the assumption is the same.

But might there be a more complex game at play?

Let us consider the case of the forest fires that swept the Earth in 2018, specifically the California wildfires. The gradual warming of the Earth, the reduction in rainfall, and the siphoning of water from aquafers for use in commercial agriculture is clearly the cause of the increase in forest fires globally.

But can we be certain that the argument made by conservatives that the California wildfires were started by arson, or enhanced thereby, with the purpose of frightening citizens into adopting a response to climate change commandeered by corporate power is ludicrous?

When Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed that the wildfires were started by lasers in orbit owned by the Rothchilds as part of a conspiracy to get a high-speed rail project approved by the state of California, she set off a firestorm in the liberal media. Everyone, literally everyone, rushed out to attack her as a “nut” without considering for a moment that perhaps some part of her story might be accurate.

I have read her claims carefully, and I have read related materials concerning the political conflicts in California at the time, and I do not find her argument convincing. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that because progressive causes attack her for anti-Semitism, and climate change advocates attack her for her ignorance of science, that her claims are unfounded.

Let us take a look at the official photos selected by the BBC for the report “California wildfires: The day Paradise burned down.”

Specifically consider the following two photos.

In the first photo, we see that the houses in a development have been cleared down to the foundations in a manner that would be absolutely impossible in a forest fire, while the trees nearby stand virtually untouched.

This photograph, from a mainstream media source (Reuters), presents information that immediately raises serious questions.

The second photographs indicates what appears to be melted aluminum that flowed from the automobiles burned in the forest fire. It is similarly improbable that a forest fire would burn at a temperature sufficient to melt steel or aluminum.

Following the basic principle of Occam’s razor, I would like to propose a more probable explanation for what happened. Perhaps the California wildfires, which are slowly increasing due to climate change, were purposely enhanced by artificial means, and in this case the houses were destroyed either by a strike from low-orbit military satellites, or were simply demolished in manner so as to suggest that such an attack had happened. Similarly, weapons were employed that were hot enough to melt metal, or perhaps this photograph was simply inserted in the article so as to suggest such an interpretation.

The real conspiracy might not be the alleged Rothschild family’s ambitions in California, but rather the creation of an event that will be read in a radically divergent manner by different interpretive communities, so as to inhibit the formation of a broad consensus on the danger of corporate power and to discredit the real threat of climate change by creating real examples of falsified climate disaster.

Operation Civil War

The media of the left and of the right are cranking out stories about a possible civil war in the United States like there is no tomorrow. There are real reasons for fearing that such a domestic conflict may be in the offing. Already the low-intensity killings involving police and other vigilante groups are approaching the level of “Bleeding Kansas” in scale.

We must also ask ourselves whether the fascination of the mainsteam media with this theme suggests a more devious plan to divide and conquer. Forcing authority figures to put their reputations on the line pushing a COVID19 narrative that they do not buy has completely discredited the Federal Government, universities, the mainstream media and all the experts we rely on. The stage is set for open defiance of the entire system—which was perhaps the plan all along.

Civil war would serve to tear institutions apart and create an environment in which the super-rich, unimpeded, can push through even more radical institutional change. The actual class war between a handful of multibillionaires and the rest of the country would be hidden behind orchestrated fighting between “white nationalist terrorists” and “black lives matters” minorities that would be narrated in different media so as to stoke emotions, and to blind people to the real agenda.

This work is rendered easier by of the mistaken assumption of the upper middle class that they are on the same side as the super-rich, that Bill Gates or Elon Musk are just like them, only more successful.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The super-rich have so completely monopolized the financial system, and amassed such wealth, that for them the difference between a Harvard Professor, a US senator, a successful real estate mogul and a homeless man is insignificant. They have launched against the rest of humanity that targets not only workers and immigrants, but the entire upper middle class as well.

It is critical for the strategy, however, that the upper-middle class, all those with measly assets under one brick (100 million dollars) be convinced that they are on the side of the super-rich, and not on the side of the working class.

The new economic reality, however, is clear. The forced quarantine at airports, the forced lockdowns of schools, even in upper-middle class neighborhoods, makes it clear that policy is made for a handful of people and that even families with millions of dollars of assets are not significant for the planners.

The decision of Princeton University to require COVID19 vaccines of all students over the summer, or be denied registration, indicates just how extreme the concentration of wealth and power has become.

Most people assume that the students at elite Ivy League colleges are so privileged that they could not possibly be sacrificed for corporate profits through the use of dangerous “vaccine.” If Princeton students must to take the vaccine, obviously students in India, Brazil, Spain and Japan will have to too.

As far as the super-rich are concerned, however, the lawyers, doctors, bankers and professors who send their children to Princeton are no consequence. They are betting that the lag time between the start of this COVID19 operation and the point when educated people finally grasp the new political reality will be sufficient to vaccinate the vast majority of humanity.

The Collapse of civilization

Ultimately, the contagion of massive fictions in the United States cannot be explained simply in terms of the economic interests of the rich. Much of the scientific evidence about COVID19 is accessible on the internet with a bit of effort and anyone who reads it with care will be forced to admit that the testimony of hundreds of scientists is convincing. Moreover, advocates for mandatory vaccines are never forced to enter into public debates with the medical experts who criticize the entire COVID19 regime.

Educated Americans willingly refuse to read these scientific materials, or to engage in a thoughtful discussions with their peers.

American lawyers and doctors, executives and professors resemble the characters in “The Sleepwalkers” (Die Schlafwandler), an novel by the Austrian writer Hermann Broch that describes the lives of the ruling class of Germany caught up in the collapsing cultural order before the First World War. Broch’s novel describes the bizarre psychological state of the educated classes of Germany. People lived like sleepwalkers; functional in society, competent at their jobs, even capable of appreciating fine music and art. Yet those same intellectuals were in the most profound sense blind, completely oblivious to the signs of systemic collapse. Because they could perform sophisticated jobs while remaining oblivious to the spread of militarism, the end of the rule of law and the demands on the economy made by overproduction, they made the unthinkable possible.

The Origin of this crisis is not corrupt politicians and CEOs, or bad policies and poor planning.

Deep down the entire system, the civilization, is decaying. The educated and informed who could be leaders are left confused, engaged in self-destructive acts as a result. We see unfolding the human version of colony collapse disorder, when the majority of worker bees in a honey bee hive inexplicably disappear, leaving behind the queen, plenty of food, and a few nurse bees.

We cannot even start to get a handle on this civilizational crisis because our discussions of politics and economics have been stripped of all discussion of philosophy and literature, aesthetics and history. The push for the efficient and practical forced on education by corporations has left us blind and helpless, unable to grasp the invisible shifts taking place at a subterranean level within society.

Paul Levy argues that our current society is wracked by the psycho-spiritual disease “wetiko” (the native American term) which is impervious to the anti-psychotics dished out by therapists like candy at Halloween. Wekiko is a disease in our civilization that feeds like a parasite on the spirit, a collective psychosis that has seized control of the entire system of things.

Levy notes that for those captured by wekiko,

“You’re blind and you do not know you are blind, and in fact imagine that you can see clearly. You come to believe that you can see more clearly than those who are clear-sighted. You then become unaware of what it is to be sighted, as you have no reference point for comparison. You do not see how you are unwittingly colluding with wetiko’s pernicious effects and thereby you are unaware of how you are having negative or ill effects upon others and the world.”

Such words describe perfectly the vast majority of the ruling class in the United States who, now spiritually crippled, are leading the entire population of the Earth to the edge of the cliff.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.

Featured image is from Emanuel Pastreich

The People of Palestine Have Been Terrorized

May 24th, 2021 by Yasser Abed

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

For a moment we can breathe and we can try to sleep. How long this moment will last we don’t know.

For 10 days the people of Palestine have been terrorised. Over 200 people including over 60 children have been murdered in Gaza. Over a dozen murdered on the West Bank. Injuries run into thousands across the whole of Palestine.

Yet again mobile phones and WhatsApp and other messaging systems have proved their value. But what a double edged knife. Yasser, explains;

“As the electricity system was damaged and cut back to 4 hours each day it was not always easy to contact my wife and my 3 young daughters from Belgium where I have just got asylum and now organising our family unification here. I cannot describe my feelings of fear. I knew from the calls that our neighbourhood was being bombarded. I saw our neighbour’s homes smashed to pieces; I saw young guys I hung around with crawling wounded along the street. For 10 nights my family were in such danger. My children screamed for hours every night as the Israeli bombs and rockets poured down. Whenever my mobile rang my heart rate soared to new heights. Was this going to be the call to tell me what I dreaded every breathing moment.

During these days I would meet with my friends in one house in Antwerp and we would stay together. We came from different parts of Gaza so we would open our phones to the different news channels so we could hear all the news coming out. When we slept, two or three would stay awake so we would miss nothing. If the bombs were falling in northern Gaza they would wake me so I could check on my family. If the attacks were in southern Gaza my friend from Rafa was awakened to listen to the news, and so ten nights passed. I was often shivering and trembling because of what was happening next to my family and I would imagine that they had died because of what I was watching; hearing the screams here and there; seeing people dying with their children under the rubble of their bombed buildings and streets. I hope this war will never return again. Thanks to God, my family have survived. So far…..”

Without exception, every refugee on Samos from Gaza has faced the same horrors these past 10 days. Yasser speaks for many. He continues:

“We have been disgusted by the position taken by many countries in the West where governments such as Greece have shouted their support for Israel’s violence and have presented it as conflict between two equal partners. Israel has one of the most powerful, modern armies in the world.

We, the Palestinians have no chance in a conflict with this sort of power.

But we are not without hope. Over recent days we have seen more people in more countries coming out to protest against the violence and cruelties of the Israeli state. More and more are seeing and rightly describing Israel as an apartheid state. Yet again I find it difficult to express how much that this international solidarity of people has meant for us over these past days. We don’t feel so lonely.

Never let us be lonely. Please. We will not be freed by wars and armies. “

The ceasefire means there are no bombs today. But we now must face the huge damage done which has to be confronted now. Without delay if the horror is to be controlled.

Yasser again:

“More than 45,000 refugees fled their homes and the places where they live and went to UNRWA schools to protect them from the shells, rockets and inevitable death or injury. There are huge numbers of children now homeless, without food, without clothes, without blankets. They are still terrified. These children are innocent of what is happening in Gaza. Young children want to play, laugh and have fun. Now we must stand by them as much as we possibly can.”

On Samos this led to the refugees from Gaza working closely with Sofiane from Open Doors to raise money and to get it through to Gaza without delay. In less than a day money was raised and sent and used to provide food parcels for those with nothing. No NGOs or the like, just ordinary people using their networks and local knowledge to get help to where it is most needed. The feedback from Gaza was humbling. It was the solidarity which brought joy as much as the food.

These initiatives must continue. The ceasefire has done nothing to change the incredible challenges to life that the people of Gaza in particular now face. Over the years we have developed wide range of survival skills including the ability to transfer money in and out of Gaza. So there is no need only to think of channeling funds through big NGOs but to use local networks that exist throughout Gaza and Palestine as a whole. If you are not able to connect to such a network then please feel free to contact Yasser who will with his friends do all they can to help you. This is the way of solidarity and not charity.

Please dig deep. Your help is needed. Your solidarity is yearned for.

Thank you.

*

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

Featured image is from ummid.com

Bombshell: Nobel Prize Winner Reveals – COVID Vaccine Is ‘Creating Variants’

By Renee Nal, May 24, 2021

While it is understood that viruses mutate, causing variants, French Virologist and Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier contends that “it is the vaccination that is creating the variants.”

Biden: End Your Co-Belligerent Backing of Israeli War Crimes

By Ralph Nader, May 24, 2021

As Senator, Vice President, and now President, your self-promoted/displayed empathy has a problem. You can’t seem to connect the Israeli military powerhouse’s occupation to the oppression and destruction of innocent Palestinian civilians, illegal seizure of Palestinian land/water, and daily violations of U.S. and international law.

Latest CDC Data Show Reports of Adverse Events After COVID Vaccines Surpass 200,000, Including 943 Among 12- to 17-Year-Olds

By Megan Redshaw, May 23, 2021

The number of reported adverse events following COVID vaccines surpassed 200,000 according to data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The data comes directly from reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Oregon Tells Businesses, Workplaces, Worship Houses Vaccine Proof Required for Entrance Without Mask

By Joseph Weber, May 23, 2021

Oregon is telling workplaces, businesses and places of worship that mask-less people can now enter such establishments, but only with proof of a full COVID-19 vaccine.

Israel: Profile of a Terror State

By Donald Monaco, May 23, 2021

Israel’s crimes against the people of Palestine reveal a record of barbarism and cruelty unmatched in the modern world except for the unrivaled chronical of suffering resulting from murderous wars perpetrated by U.S. imperialism in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Nicaragua, and beyond.

Video: Lawyers File Temporary Restraining Order Against FDA Emergency Use Authorization of Vax for Children

By Thomas Renz and Kristina Borjesson, May 23, 2021

Lawyer Thomas Renz discusses why he and a group of lawyers have filed a temporary restraining order against various government agencies in an Alabama court to halt vaccinations of children.

COVID Vaccines May Bring Avalanche of Neurological Disease

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 24, 2021

In this interview, return guest Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at MIT for over five decades, discusses the COVID-19 vaccines. Since 2008, her primary focus has been glyphosate and sulfur, but in the last year, she took a deep-dive into the science of these novel injections and recently published an excellent paper on this topic.

Ten “Good News” Covid Stories You Probably Missed

By Mike Whitney, May 23, 2021

If you’re one of the millions of Americans who’d like to see the country return to normal ASAP, there’s plenty of good news to report this week. As cases and fatalities have continued to drop, the cloud of fear that has enveloped the nation for the last 14 months, is gradually lifting.

160+ Experts Slam COVID Vaccines as ‘Unnecessary, Ineffective and Unsafe’ in Powerful Letter

By Raymond Wolfe, May 22, 2021

Dozens of medical experts issued a warning this month about COVID-19 vaccines, slamming the jabs as “unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe” and likely to lead to “foreseeable mass deaths.”

The Lockdown: Engineered Economic Depression, The Globalization of Poverty

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 22, 2021

Trump’s decision on January 31, 2020 was taken immediately following the announcement by the WHO Director General of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) (January 30, 2020). In many regards, this was an act of “economic warfare” against China.

Can We Trust the WHO?

By F. William Engdahl, May 22, 2021

The most influential organization in the world with nominal responsibility for global health and epidemic issues is the United Nations’ World Health Organization, WHO, based in Geneva.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Bombshell: Nobel Prize Winner Reveals – COVID Vaccine Is ‘Creating Variants’

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The claim often heard from those attempting to pass more gun control legislation is that all they’re trying to do is get the “weapons of war off our streets,” but it’s simply untrue that “weapons of war” are available to the general public. You’d last about three minutes in a conventional war with an AR-15, even with one of the most aggressive builds you can get your hands on (that doesn’t mean it’s impossible for guerilla uprisings to defeat powerful enemies). The truth is that the only people with “weapons of war” on America’s streets are, increasingly, the police.

Thanks primarily to the Pentagon’s 1033 program which allows law enforcement agencies to get their hands on Department of Defense technology and the Bush-era War on Terror, American police have received a startling amount of heavy-duty, military-grade hardware. Between 1998 and 2014, the dollar value of military hardware sent to police departments skyrocketed from $9.4 million to $796.8 million.

And just as when “all you’ve got is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail,” militarized police have become more willing to use their new weapons when carrying out law enforcement tasks. For example, the number of SWAT raids in the United States grew dramatically from about 3,000 in 1980, to a whopping 50,000 SWAT raids in 2014, according to The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

None of this is an argument for disbanding or even “defunding” the police, the latter of which is merely a slogan to mask the former. However, being in favor of there being a well-equipped police department isn’t an argument for ensuring that police are armed to the teeth with military-grade hardware. Indeed, normal police (as opposed to, for example, small, specialized riot control units) might have their jobs become more difficult through an escalated arms race and eroded community trust.

To say that the militarization of the police is nothing new is to ignore America’s recent history as well as the long-standing model of a peace officer. As the police have militarized and the Pentagon backs major players in Hollywood, the focus has shifted from one who keeps the peace to one who enforces the law – and that’s an important difference.

What Is the Difference Between a Law Enforcement Officer and a Peace Officer?

The model for police, and the constables and sheriffs before them prior to the late 20th Century, was that of a peace officer. In many states, it’s not even true that police are law enforcement officers – even though it’s a term frequently used by the police and their fans in the “Blue Lives Matter,” “Thin Blue Line,” and “Back the Blue” movements.

It’s a subtle, but important, distinction: Is the role of the police to enforce the law or to keep the peace? Consider the difference between the police force of a typical American city and the fictional Andy Taylor of The Andy Griffith Show. The former is concerned primarily with enforcing the law for its own sake and catching as many “lawbreakers” as possible. The latter, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with keeping the peace. Sometimes that means looking the other way when laws get broken.

This isn’t simply a matter of how pleasant or unpleasant it is to deal with the police. Law enforcement officers might be writing parking tickets in the middle of a burglary epidemic due to their need to enforce all the laws all the time. Conversely, a peace officer is going to ignore a lot of low-level, habitual crime – even when there are clear victims (for example, vandalism or loitering) – because he emphasizes going out and catching violent and dangerous criminals. There’s no impulse to arrest a guy who habitually smokes weed on a street corner if he’s providing the police with valuable information leading to the arrest of violent criminals.

Peace officers might have the need for a sidearm and a shotgun, but they have little or no need for, say, a tank, to say nothing of the variety of nasty DARPA weapons police departments are increasingly wanting and getting.

None of this is to suggest that the world is better off with nothing at all than with “law enforcement” type officers. Nor is it to suggest that we replace existing police departments with something along the lines of what anti-police protesters have requested – an army of highly educated social workers and psychologists who will mostly look the other way when violence occurs. The law enforcement model is deeply flawed, but is potentially appropriate, particularly in large cities with high rates of violent crime.

Further, while “broken window” policing is largely derided by general detractors of police, it’s worth noting that this type of policing was instrumental in transforming New York City from “Fear City” into a nice place to live and maybe even raise a family. There is no single model of policing that is appropriate for every city and every situation.

The Origins of Militarized Police

Before we begin talking about the militarized American police, it’s worth mentioning that United States law specifically prohibits the military from enforcing the laws in the U.S. That’s why we don’t have the Army enforcing the law, and also why we don’t have a military-style gendarmerie as is common in Europe. This law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, was passed after the removal of federal troops from the Southern states following the end of Reconstruction. With rare exception, the federal government is not allowed to use the Army or the Air Force to enforce the law and the Navy has strict regulations for both the Navy and Marine Corps regarding the use of either for domestic law enforcement.

However, this law has been somewhat undermined due to police forces becoming so much like the military, which began during Prohibition in the 1920s. Organized crime got its first foothold in American life thanks to the lucrative black market in liquor. This was also the golden age of bank robbery with figures like Bonnie and Clyde, Pretty Boy Floyd and John Dillinger becoming folk heroes. The Thompson submachine gun and the Browning Automatic Rifle were increasingly used by organized crime and the “stars” of bank robbery.

The Prohibition Era saw domestic police departments wielding automatic weapons for the first time. There was nothing nefarious about this from the perspective of local police departments. In fact, it was the police departments most regularly in contact with vicious organized crime, such as Chicago and Kansas City, who led the way in arming their officers with automatic weapons and armored vehicles. At least two rounds of ammunition, the .38 Super and the .357 Magnum, were developed with the express purpose of being able to penetrate the early bulletproof vests worn by gangsters in the Prohibition Era.

Overall crime increased by 24 percent during the first two years of Prohibition. This included a nine-percent increase in theft and burglary, a 13-percent increase in homicides, and a 13-percent increase in assault and battery. Overall, police department costs increased by 11.4 percent. However, because the police were busy fighting the scourge of demon alcohol, it was difficult for them to target crimes unrelated to this. In fact, a study of South Carolina counties that enforced Prohibition versus those who didn’t found a whopping 30- to 60-percent increase in homicides in the counties who enforced the law. All of this is according to Charles Hanson Towne in The Rise and Fall of Prohibition: The Human Side of What the Eighteenth Amendment Has Done to the United States.

The militarization of the police during Prohibition is a nuanced topic. On the one hand, city police certainly should have been equipped with the materiel needed to combat organized crime. No reasonable person thinks that law enforcement should simply be outgunned by criminals for the sake of “not militarizing the police.” However, it is worth noting that the police were confronted with this kind of a threat due to the black market created by alcohol prohibition. The end of Prohibition not only saw a steep decline in crime and organized crime, but also a falling back on the militarization of the police.

This era of militarization drew to a close with the end of Prohibition itself. However, the militarization of police would resume again a few decades down the line.

The Second Wave of Militarized Police

The second wave of police militarization begins with the race riots in the 1950s and 1960s, with the Watts Riots in 1965 gaining a sort of gravitas. The LAPD used military-style weapons and tactics to end the riots. What’s more, an increasingly militant civil rights movement was seen by the CIA as an arm of international Communism. While there is some merit to this view, it’s certainly true that it led to a philosophy of increasingly militarized police.

The militarization of police is not by any means based on manufactured and artificial paranoia. Even in the case of Prohibition, it’s a simple fact that organized crime used weapons with firepower far in excess of what the police had access to. Similarly, the second wave of militarized police was partly in response to an increasingly militarized organized crime thanks in part to the beginnings of the War on Drugs.

On one hand, the police were encountering more and more dangerous organized crime syndicates, such as the Medellin Cartel and street gangs like the Gangster Disciples. Urban unrest included not just race riots like the aforementioned Watts Riots and the 1967 riots in Detroit, but also the riot outside of the 1968 Democratic Party Convention. Domestic terrorist organizations like the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and the Earth Liberation Front likewise offered increased challenges to law enforcement.

Unrelated to the War on Drugs, the 1986 FBI Miami shootout was a game-changer for law enforcement budgets. Police outnumbered suspects by a factor of four. Despite this, they were pinned down by suppressive gunfire. The incident lasted five minutes and 145 rounds were fired. The suspects were hit multiple times, but continued to fight in part because the officers’ and agents’ service revolvers did not have sufficient stopping power. In response, there was a movement to increase the firepower of service revolvers. This is when semi-automatic pistols began to replace the revolver and larger magazines became the rule. Rifles, shotguns, and heavier body armor also saw increased adoption after this shootout.

Another incident accelerating the militarization of police is the North Hollywood shootout of 1997. This bank robbery left two dead (the perps) and 20 wounded – 12 police officers and eight civilians. It lasted 44 minutes, an eternity in terms of police shootouts, with approximately 2,000 rounds fired. The perps got off approximately twice as many rounds as the police officers on the scene, but the game-changer was the arrival of the SWAT team, who had much more appropriate weaponry. This led to everyday police officers getting equipment that was customary for SWAT teams in the 1990s.

We again arrive at a place to examine this topic with some nuance: Current organized crime presents a threat to public safety, as well as police officers – who should be equipped with the necessary tools to combat this threat and maintain public order. However, it’s not clear that small towns are in need of SWAT units, nor that any city needs a tank. What’s more, there has been a massive expansion of SWAT team use that seems inappropriate.

One can certainly be critical of the desire of every police department to have every tool under the sun – and to use them with gusto – without having to demand stripping the police of very necessary tools required to combat what are effectively small paramilitary organizations. A lack of perfection in urban policing is not an argument for no policing whatsoever, it is an argument for greater oversight and civilian diligence.

The 1033 Program

The 1033 Program was enacted in the wake of the 1997 North Hollywood shootout. Created by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, it allowed law enforcement agencies to get their hands on military hardware. Unsurprisingly, the preference was given to law enforcement engaged in anti-drug and counter-terror activity, underscoring the vital role of wars on abstract concepts in increasing the militarization of the police force. Bill Clinton – he of the massacres at Waco and Ruby Ridge – signed the bill into law.

$5.1 billion in material was transferred from the Department of Defense to local law enforcement between 1997 and 2014, with ammunition being the most common requisition. 8,000 law enforcement offices participate as of 2014.

Also included in this total are 20 different school law enforcement agencies. The Los Angeles School Police Department has requisitioned 61 assault rifles and three grenade launchers. Ten school police departments in the State of Texas and have requisitioned 25 automatic pistols, 64 M16s, 18 M14s, and tactical vests.

The program has come under bipartisan criticism lead by Rand Paul. Senator Paul stated that the program has “incentivized the militarization of local police precincts and helped municipal governments build what are essentially small armies.” Senator Claire McCaskill led the first investigation of the program starting in September 2014. At least one study found a correlation between the 1033 program and increased fatalities at the hands of law enforcement.

21st-Century Police Militarization

One of the big game-changers for militarization of police was the 9/11 attacks. This greatly eroded the Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure. Now police – local, state and federal – need to suspect “terrorism.” This provides the same convenient cover for police overreach that was previously offered by the War on Drugs.

President Obama gave new directives for the 1033 program that forbade police from acquiring certain weapons from the military. These include weaponized vehicles, grenade launchers and bayonets. Attorney General Jeff Sessions ended these restrictions upon assuming office in 2017.

The weapons that come to local police departments through the 1033 pipeline are direct from the military and, by extension, the War on Terror.

Training with military units is also increasingly common according to a report from the Cato Institute. The training generally takes place not with regular infantry units, but with specialized and elite groupingswithin the United States military who are more familiar with guerilla uprisings – such as the Navy SEALs and the Army Rangers.

The Role of Civil Asset Forfeiture

Civil asset forfeiture (CAF) is a major driver in the militarization of the police force. Put simply, CAF is a legal principle that allows police to seize money and property from “suspected” criminals, which they can do without a warrant because the suspect’s property doesn’t have the presumption of innocence. Note that police do not have to convict or even indict. Indeed, indictments are not even filed in over 80 percent of all cases. Police can simply seize property, more or less at will, with some property harder to seize than others. Seizure of anything under $20,000 will almost certainly stand because that’s about what it’s going to cost you to fight CAF in court.

Most of the money raised through civil asset forfeiture is filed under “other.” This can be anything from a $600 coffee maker to a tank. Because the burden of proof is so low and the benefits are so high, CAF is effectively a legally allowed form of theft by police officers, allowing them to purchase military-grade hardware with stolen property. Here is a short list of military hardware purchased with civil asset forfeiture funds:

  • $5 million helicopter for the Los Angeles Police Department
  • $1 million mobile command bus for Prince George County, Maryland
  • $227,000 for a tank in Douglasville, GA, a town with a population of 32,000
  • $54,000 for 27 M-4 assault rifles in Braselton, GA, a town with a population of 9,476

While not the sole, nor even the primary, means by which the police are becoming militarized, this is a significant method for police departments to bankroll their own militarization.

Highlights of Police Militarization

It’s one thing to discuss police militarization simply in terms of weapons acquisition. It’s another to discuss police militarization in terms of actual incidents. Some high-profile incidents involving heavily militarized police are worth examining.

  • MOVE: In 1985, the Philadelphia police came into conflict with a militant black nationalist organization called MOVE over the clearing of a building. An armed standoff resulted in shots exchanged between the compound’s inhabitants and the police. Eventually, this erupted into a firefight involving both semi-automatic and automatic weapons. On the orders of the police commissioner, the building was bombed twice. The resulting fire spread to a total of 65 different houses in the neighborhood and caused 11 deaths, including five children under 13. Over 250 were left homeless due to the fires.
  • Ruby Ridge: This is notorious within in the Second Amendment and liberty movements, so it hardly needs to be repeated. In 1992, the United States Marshal Service attempted to serve a bench warrant at Ruby Ridge, the home of Randy Weaver and his family. His wife Vicki and his 14-year-old son Sammy were shot by USMS and FBI agents armed with M16s, sniper rifles and weaponized vehicles. Randy Weaver’s attorney made accusations of criminal wrongdoing and a resulting 14-day Senate investigation called for sweeping law enforcement reforms to avoid another similar incident. Federal officers also killed the Weaver family dog.
  • Branch Davidians: This is perhaps one of, if not the, archetypal example of a militarized police force greatly overreaching. Armed with .50 caliber rifles, M728 Combat Engineer Vehicles (which are effectively tanks) and M79 grenade launchers, the FBI and ATF engaged in a firefight with Branch Davidians inside. Controversy remains to this day with regard to who fired first and who started the fire that consumed the building, leaving 82 members of the church dead.

These are the big three, but there are many smaller events also worth mentioning. During the wreckage of Hurricane Katrina, private Blackwater contractors patrolled the streets with automatic weapons. They were accused of summary execution of looters. In a low point for militarized police in 2014, a SWAT team in Cornelia, Georgia severely mutilated the face of an 18-month-old baby boy with a flash bang grenade in a fruitless search for drugs.

The Role of SWAT Teams

SWAT teams are effectively the military of the police force. Begun in 1965 in Philadelphia, SWAT teams were conceived as a way to restrain urban unrest, deal with hostage situations or handle barricaded marksmen like Charles Whitman.

In December 1969, the LAPD’s SWAT team squared off with the Black Panthers, with Daryl Gates requesting and receiving permission to use a grenade launcher. In May 1974, the same SWAT team had a several-hours-long gun battle with the Symbionese Liberation Army.

However, SWAT teams gradually began to tackle missions that were not, strictly speaking, appropriate for the tools in their toolbox. What’s more, once LAPD’s SWAT team became famous, every city seemed to want one. The number of SWAT teams in cities of 50,000 or more doubled between the mid-80s and late-90s, at which point 89 percent of all cities of this size had a SWAT team.

Some startling facts when it comes to SWAT teams:

  • 62% of all SWAT deployments were for drug raids
  • 79% of these were done on private residences
  • Only 7% of all raids were done for situations SWAT was invented for – namely barricades or hostage situations

Even smaller cities have SWAT teams now, which raises the question of why. Mission creep is the short answer, with SWAT teams now being used for operations far beyond the original scope of their work. Put simply, the SWAT team was not created to serve every search warrant that comes across the desk of a small-town police force.

SWAT teams ostensibly exist to respond to “high risk” scenarios. But there are seemingly no guidelines for what makes a situation high risk. Sometimes local SWAT teams use a threat matrix. However, these matrices are highly subjective and vulnerable to abuse. Partial responses are discouraged. Either the SWAT team is not deployed at all or there is a full-throttle response.

To use one example of why these matrices don’t work, let us consider the presence or absence of weapons. There is no way of knowing whether or not weapons will be present. So officers must subjectively guess whether or not they believe weapons will be present. Unfortunately, officers are pretty bad at this guessing game. According to an ACLU report, SWAT officers believed weapons were present in 35 percent of cases, but only actually found them in a scant 13 percent. In 36 percent of cases where SWAT was deployed to find drugs, no drugs were found.

No-Knock Raids

One of the most concretely damaging aspects of a militarized police force is the no-knock raid or no-knock warrant. This is precisely what it sounds like: Rather than announce their presence to serve a warrant, police come in, oftentimes literally with guns blazing. The presence of police might be announced in a perfunctory and formal way – i.e., announcing “police department” before using a battering ram to fell a door or throwing a flash bang grenade.

It’s difficult to know just how many of these there are every year, simply because the definition is somewhat elastic. However, an estimate presented in an Associated Press article claims that the number of no-knock warrants has exploded from around 1,500 annually in the early 1980s to over 45,000 by 2015.

Indeed, knocking and announcing is one of the oldest standards in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, going back to Semayne’s case in 1604. It was more recently affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. United States, which states that police are required to provide notice before entry. Federal law 18 U.S.C § 3109 codifies this practice, however, the courts have carved out some exceptions: Wilson v. Arkansas provides for an exception to prevent the destruction of evidence. Hudson v. Michigan allows the admissibility of evidence obtained through illegal entry.

The theory behind no-knock warrants is that police can seize evidence before it is destroyed or else leverage the element of surprise to maintain the safety of officers. The reality is very different.

No-knock warrants are illegal in two states: Oregon, where they are banned by statute, and Florida, where they have been ruled unconstitutional by the state supreme court. 20 states routinely allow no-knock warrants without a statute explicitly authorizing them, while another 13 have such statutes on the books.

Between 2010 and 2016, 31 civilians and eight officers were killed during executions of no-knock warrants.

Burglars have used no-knock warrant fraud to rob law-abiding homeowners. Conversely, home owners have shot at officers believing they were being victimized by a home invasion. Officers routinely lie under oath to obtain such warrants and injure innocent people, including children and even infants in the process. And, of course, dogs are routinely shot.

No-knock raids are a demonstrably dangerous, highly corrupt system of law enforcement with little benefit for public safety.

Fusion Centers: Surveillance and Snooping

As the military’s tools for surveillance become more powerful, this too will trickle down to the local police.

In at least one case, it already has. Fusion Centers are hubs for local, state and federal police to share information. They’re effectively intelligence-gathering done by various police agencies who pool their resources. While this isn’t an uncommon practice, the Fusion Centers have virtually no oversight and are filled with zeal for the War on Terror. While its primary existence was to surveil in the fight against terrorism, Fusion Centers have quickly ballooned to gather intelligence on just about anything – and it’s not just the police. The military participates in Fusion Centers, as does the private sector, which means they’re a privacy nightmare.

The federal government has pushed Fusion Centers and largely bankrolled them. Hundreds of FBI agents work with Fusion Centers, with the federal government providing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid. In the case of the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center, the federal government created a Fusion Center at the state level, only eventually turning control of an ostensibly state agency to the state. 30 percent of these “state” agencies are physically located in federal office space.

Private sector companies collect, store and analyze data for Fusion Centers. This would be dangerous on its own, but the lack of any oversight makes it particularly troublesome. Even if a private sector has the best of intentions, malicious third-party actors could access some of your most sensitive data if it’s been datamined by a Fusion Center. A company without the best intentions can do all kinds of “government-approved” snooping into your personal affairs.

Another nasty surveillance tool currently being deployed by the police is the Stingray phone tracker. This is effectively a phony cell phone tower that snoops on cell phone calls, which can extract significant information about you from your cell phone. Originally to be used only in terrorism investigations, the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes that the LAPD “has been using it for just about any investigation imaginable.” They can also be used to jam or otherwise interfere with your phone signal. Stingrays are highly mobile and can be mounted to just about any vehicle.

All of this is part of an overall drive for increased police surveillance starting at the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security and trickling down. “Total Information Awareness” was one of the more Orwellian euphemisms of the early Bush and Department of Homeland Security years. It was quickly renamed Terrorism Information Awareness, then codenamed “Basketball.” Its goal is to know everything, or at least as much as it can. In 2012, the New York Times reported that this program was “quietly thriving” at the National Security Agency.

The Information Awareness Office, established by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA – who we will discuss more later), oversaw Total Information Awareness. They collect emails, social network identities, records for phone calls and credit card purchases, medical records and a host of other information with no need for a warrant. Congress defunded this program, but it exists under the auspices of a number of different agencies according to Edward Snowden.

Technologies developed by the Information Awareness Office (and in the wake of Snowden’s revelations, it’s worth noting that these are just the technologies that have been made public) includes:

How much of this has trickled down to your local police department is largely unknown.

The Detriments of a Militarized Police Force

There are a number of negative consequences arising from the existence of a militarized police force.

  • Civil Liberties: Chief among the problems presented by a militarized police force are civil liberties. Militarized police seems to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which forbids using the military to enforce domestic law in most cases and under ordinary circumstances.
  • Surveillance: The militarized police force also uses military-style forms of surveillance. A January 2017 report from the Cato Institute accused militarized police of “mission creep,” going beyond simple weapons and tactics and into surveillance.
  • Force: Veterans on the police force tend to have more complaints about excessive force and are more likely to discharge their weapons, according to a report from the Marshall Project.
  • Alienation: Militarized police are the antithesis of community policing, which leverages good community relations and the resources flowing from those relations to prevent and solve crimes. Military-style training for police, battle dress uniforms and even just the color black might provoke more aggression from officers. Named missions such as “War on Drugs” likewise make community policing more difficult.
  • Killing Dogs: There’s significant evidence suggesting that the more militarized a police force is, the more likely it is to shoot a dog. Yes, really. The Puppycide Database Project tracks these things.
  • Lack of Oversight: At the local, state and federal levels, there is little-to-no oversight when it comes to the militarization of the police. Most states do not keep tabs on the statistics of their SWAT teams. Where they do, reports are frequently incomplete and little-to-no action is taken on their basis. No federal agency collects information about local SWAT teams. There is little oversight of 1033 or SWAT teams either by the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security.

All of this is perhaps why, under the Obama Justice Department, there was a push toward demilitarization of the police force. In 2015, the Task Force for 21st Century Policing recommended restriction of military hardware such as grenade launchers and armored vehicles. President Donald Trump has since reversed this, reinstating the entire 1033 program and remilitarizing police.

DARPA: Police Militarization of the Future

Since there is a clearly established pipeline running from the Pentagon’s latest and greatest toys, it’s not much of a stretch to say that the weapons being developed by the Pentagon today are going to be used on the streets of America in the very near future.

In fact, there’s an entire department of the Pentagon dedicated to developing futuristic weapons to help the United States win the new arms. It’s called the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, commonly known as DARPA. This agency has not only developed weapons, but also a number of contemporary technologies most people take for granted – such as GPS, graphic user interface, the mouse, and even the internet itself. Recent research includes more intuitive prosthetic limbs as well as brain implants that will help those with memory loss regain their memory.

But DARPA isn’t just working on projects like these with the promise to revolutionize medicine and increase the quality of human life. They also work on some rather nasty little projects that will almost certainly trickle down to your local police department through the 1033 program. Some of the futuristic weapons currently in development by DARPA include:

  • Active Denial System: The active denial system is an invisible ray gun heating the skin of people in a given area to 130 degrees. The targets instinctively flee, something that DARPA calls the “goodbye effect.” The end result can leave second- or third-degree burns on up to 20 percent of the body’s surface. The weapon has already been tested in Afghanistan.
  • Taser X12: Nearly everyone is familiar with the Taser. The Taser X12 is effectively that in 12-gauge shotgun form. This extends the reach of a Taser weapon from about 20 feet to about 100 feet.
  • Skull Piercing Microwaves: Yep, you read that right. One of the projects DARPA is working on right now leverages the audio effect of microwaves. This creates shockwaves inside the skull, which are read by the brain as sound. This can result in discomfort, incapacitation and brain damage.
  • Long-Range Acoustic Device: Sirens might not sound like a big deal, but the current ones being worked on by DARPA are so loud they can cause permanent hearing damage very quickly. Pittsburgh police already used this against protestors in 2009. More advanced sonic weapons can be deadly, including the Thunder Generator developed by the Israelis
  • Voice of God: This one sounds impossible, but it’s not. The Voice of God is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. It’s a weapon beaming words directly into your head so that you think God is talking to you. This leverages the same technology in LRADs, but for different effect.

These are just a few of the weapons that we know about. It’s likely that there are far more frightening classified weapons coming down the pike over the next decade.

The tendency is strongly in the direction of increasingly militarized police. This renders the notion of “weapons of war on our streets” as a gun grabber argument exceptionally weak. They have weapons far in excess to that of the average citizen or even the average criminal. This means resisting them can easily be deadly, even when you’re within your legal rights.

We once again believe that the solution to overly militarized police is not the total elimination of the police, nor the radical disarming of the police. Rather, what is required is greater civilian attention to what police are doing. Police ought to be held accountable, through established civilian channels of oversight, not the court of public opinion. What’s more, care must be taken to ensure that the police are not afraid to ruthlessly enforce the law when the situation calls for it for fear of being taken to task by civilian oversight committees that have never walked a beat. Part of what makes the problem so difficult to solve is that there are no easy solutions.

There are, however, some quick wins. There is absolutely no reason for civil asset forfeiture to continue, nor should local smokies have access to equipment designed for federal law enforcement to snoop on organized crime and terrorist organizations. DARPA toys shouldn’t be in the hands of local police, either. Local police already have a number of riot dispersal tools at the ready. Where rioting is allowed to fester, it does so because of weak-willed civilian governments unwilling to allow the police to maintain public order.

Some have argued that an end to qualified immunity would do the trick. However, anytime a position is supported by the far left, it is worth examining the position further, no matter how reasonable it may seem.

What Is Qualified Immunity?

First, let’s talk about qualified immunity. Qualified immunity sounds like some arcane and esoteric application of the law that protects police and other government officials from all scrutiny and consequences.

What it means, however, in very simple terms, is that government officials cannot be held civilly liable in court unless their actions “violated a clearly established right” – i.e., where their conduct is “obviously unlawful.” It applies to all local, state, and federal executive branch officers, but it does not protect these officials from criminal prosecution (aside from prosecutors, who have absolute immunity). Police are protected, as are mayors, governors, medical board inspectors, prison guards, school administrators, and everyone else who is in the business of enforcing laws and regulations, including private individuals who act jointly with government officials.

Proponents of qualified immunity argue that it simply protects officials from having their lives and finances ruined in civil court, where standards of evidence and the bar for conviction are much lower. And again, it does not totally and wholly protect them from civil lawsuits, just in most cases where officials are reasonably acting in good faith. In the case of police, this allows them to work without having to balance their actions against losing their house and their children’s college fund. This is important because police often have to make heat-of-the-moment decisions in fractions of a second. And proponents argue this doctrine simply protects police from being “test cases” for what are and are not constitutional protections.

Opponents of qualified immunity argue that it’s an act of judicial policymaking because it’s not the result of a law passed by Congress, nor is it written in the Constitution. Thus the current doctrine as applied today in courts leads to hair-splitting and it is often impossible for plaintiffs to meet the burden. It’s also applied inconsistently and can greatly depend on the judge or judges involved in the case. And perhaps most importantly, this liability shield extends to everyone who is in the business of enforcing laws and regulations – not just the police.

All of this raises a point worthy of consideration: The usual suspects will cry and rage at your ability to legally own an AR-15, a right codified by the United States Constitution. Rare is the gun grabber who makes any kind of stink when police use directed energy weapons. Remember that gun grabbers aren’t against guns – they’re just against yours.

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The word ‘irony’ sums up much that is probably inherent in human nature and manifest at times in human history, when one considers the on-going conflict between the Palestinians and Israel. 

Historical pogroms had been launched against Jews – ‘pogroms’ used in the widest sense of its meaning as violent attack, expulsion, or marginalisations – then the history is a long one.

King Edward I in 1290 signed an edict expelling all Jews from the Kingdom of England;

Pope Innocent the III had issued a decree against Jews, placing them in servitude for the killing of Christ; Czarist Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church pursued an exclusionary policy towards Jews;

More recently there is the Holocaust; and other instances which could be cited mainly in and around Europe of anti-Jewish actions being perpetrated.

In what can be termed historical Palestine, prior to 1948 Jews, Arab Palestinians and Christians lived peacefully with the Jewish population being about a mere 6% of the total in Palestine. The road to the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 might be said to have been signposted with Jewish hopes which followed certain critical stages.

Following the end of the Ottoman Empire, there was a new carving out of territories for the ‘Great Powers’ and in 1917 there was the Balfour Declaration announcing an intent to create a national homeland for Jews; in 1920 there was the San Reno Conference and by 1924 the then League of Nations approved the British Mandate for Palestine. Here comes trouble. Between 1936 to 1939 the Palestinians resisted British policy in Palestine. By the Post World War 11 era the world’s conscience had been touched and galvanised in favour of a Jewish state and by 1948 Zionists saw and grasped the opportunity. The on-going conflict had emerged since the inception of the Jewish state, for reasons such as:-

  1. The displacement and expulsion of several hundred thousand Palestinians to make space for the new Jewish arrivees.
  2. The anti-democratic embrace of the idea that one ethnicity can reserve for itself the exclusive right to citizenship at the expense and to the disadvantage of the prior inhabitants of the land.
  3. The need to corral the expelled Palestinians, and deny them the right of return to their homeland.

The list of causes for the conflict could be significantly expanded – but this brief commentary is about the inherent ‘irony’ existing in the state of Israel.

International Law and the mandate 

1947, the United Kingdom had relied on Article 10 of the UN Charter:-

“The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.”

Wherein commences a problem ( the problem?). A number of Arab States had opposed the British Mandate being brought to the floor of the General Assembly for reason that under Article 12.1 of the UN Charter there is express provision that while the Security Council is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter in relation to any dispute or situation, the General Assembly must not adopt any recommendation regarding that dispute or situation unless requested to do so by the Security Council. The preexisting system of mandated territories under the law as applied via the League of Nations did not provide for any mandated territory to be transferred via the new UN schema of law. Here is how the problem commenced and continues to this day in point of law.

Articles 75 to 79 of the UN Charter address the UN Trusteeship system, which is the successor to that which had existed under the former League of Nations system as mandated territory. Under Article 79, the terms of trusteeship agreements were to be agreed by “…the States directly concerned, including the mandatory power in the case of territories held under mandate by a Member of the United Nations”.  Additionally, the agreements had to be approved by the Security Council in the case of territorial areas deemed to be strategic areas (see: Article 83) and note the provisions of Article 85 with regards to   the General Assembly’s role.

Before the UN in 1947 adopted a crucial Resolution on Palestine, the UK had made known that it wanted to withdraw from Palestine, terminate the Mandate and avoid the transfer into an international Trusteeship System.

On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted a Plan as Resolution 181 (II). That resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States with a Special International Regime being established for the city of Jerusalem.

By 1948 Jewish re-population and de-population of the Palestinian Arabs, throughout the various iterations of the conflict really does constitute – at least the Alpha – if not fully yet the Omega of the issue. A book would have to be written if I were to continue explaining the issue from its root causes. I simply want to lay an adequate historical and legal plinth to afford a credible shift leading logically to the main point of the ‘irony’ of that which was mentioned in the title at the start of this commentary.

Ironies. 

Lack of sympathy and/or support for fellow oppressed people  

At a time when Apartheid South Africa was seeking to perpetuate White minority rule, it was Israel which traded with and provided the scientific means to the racist regime to acquire nuclear weapons, as shown here and here.

Establishment and perpetuation of Apartheid policies in Israel 

The position of the recognition of the 1967 borders under international law as constituting the boundaries for Israel, is simply ignored and greater settler colony expansion is taking place on Palestinian lands.

When the Jewish ‘nation-state law’ was passed in Israel in 2018 the Arab members of the parliament ripped it up and shouted, “Apartheid”. Indeed, reservation for a certain group based on ethnicity in these circumstances can, quite accurately, be so termed.

Expulsion of Palestinians from their homes while promoting more illegal Jewish settlements ( contrary to international law) 

To say the least, is it not truly ironic, that a group of people, undeniably historically displaced and dispossessed for centuries, would embrace policies such as declaring “Jewish settlement as a national value” while mandating that the state “will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.”?

Beyond the immediate former proclamation, is it not, within historical context – ironic in the extreme for the Zionists to tell the Palestinians to forget their expulsion as of 1948 – being a diaspora people who kept a dream of return with collective memory alive over 2,000 years — long enough to remove people who historically really never did Jews any harm?

Conclusion 

International Refugee Law weighs heavily in favour of the right of return. Which version would you presently embrace Israel  – the one before 2,000 years ago – or – from 1948 onwards? Change course Israel – or – continue fighting as Apartheid South Africa did over many years, being truly reflective of what you are doing now  – fighting, however ironic the fight may be  – to the end.

*

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 Effective Learning Report.

Courtenay Barnett is a graduate of London University. His areas of study were economics, political science and international law. He has been a practising lawyer for almost fully forty years, has been arrested for defending his views, and has argued public interest and human rights cases. 

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Chlorpyrifos, a widely used pesticide, is strongly linked to brain damage in children. These and other health concerns have led several countries and some U.S. states to ban chlorpyrifos, but the chemical is still allowed on food crops in the U.S. after successful lobbying by its manufacturer.

Chlorpyrifos in food

Chlorpyrifos insecticides were introduced by Dow Chemical in 1965 and have been used widely in agricultural settings. Commonly known as the active ingredient in the brand names Dursban and Lorsban, chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide, acaricide and miticide used primarily to control foliage and soil-borne insect pests on a variety of food and feed crops. Products come in liquid form as well as granules, powders, and water-soluble packets, and may be applied by either ground or aerial equipment.

Chlorpyrifos is used on a wide variety of crops including apples, oranges, strawberries, corn, wheat, citrus and other foods families and their children eat daily. USDA’s Pesticide Data Program found chlorpyrifos residue on citrus and melons even after being washed and peeled. By volume, chlorpyrifos is most used on corn and soybeans, with over a million pounds applied annually to each crop. The chemical is not allowed on organic crops.

Non-agricultural uses include golf courses, turf, green houses, and utilities.

Human health concerns

The American Academy of Pediatrics, which represents more than 66,000 pediatricians and pediatric surgeons, has warned that continued use of chlorpyrifos puts developing fetuses, infants, children and pregnant women at great risk.

Scientists have found that prenatal exposures to chlorpyrifos are associated with lower birth weight, reduced IQ, the loss of working memory, attention disorders, and delayed motor development. Key studies are listed below.

See these comments to regulators from the Endocrine Society citing “ample evidence that chlorpyrifos has extensive effects on neurological and endocrine systems with demonstrated evidence of harm to humans and wildlife.”

Chlorpyrifos is also linked to acute pesticide poisoning and can cause convulsions, respiratory paralysis, and sometimes, death.

FDA says food and drinking water exposures unsafe

Chlorpyrifos is so toxic that the European Food Safety Authority banned sales of the chemical as of January 2020, finding that there is no safe exposure level. Some U.S. states have also banned chlorpyrifos from farming use, including California and Hawaii.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reached agreement with Dow Chemical in 2000 to phase out all residential uses of chlorpyrifos because of scientific research showing the chemical is dangerous to the developing brains of babies and young children. It was banned from use around schools in 2012.

In October 2015, the EPA said it planned to revoke all food residue tolerances for chlorpyrifos, meaning it would no longer be legal to use it in agriculture. The agency said “expected residues of chlorpyrifos on food crops exceed the safety standard under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” The move came in response to a petition for a ban from the Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network.

In November 2016, the EPA released a revised human health risk assessment for chlorpyrifos confirming it was unsafe to allow the chemical to continue in use in agriculture.  Among other things, the EPA said all food and drinking water exposures were unsafe, especially to children 1-2 years old. The EPA said the ban would take place in 2017.

Trump EPA delays ban

Following the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, the proposed chlorpyrifos ban was delayed. In March 2017, in one of his first formal actions as the nation’s top environmental official, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt rejected the petition by environmental groups and said the ban on chlorpyrifos would not go forward.

The Associated Press reported in June 2017 that Pruitt had met with Dow CEO Andrew Liveris 20 days before halting the ban. Media also reported that Dow contributed $1 million to Trump’s inaugural activities.

In February of 2018, EPA reached a settlement requiring Syngenta to pay a $150,000 fine and train farmers in pesticide use after the company failed to warn workers to avoid fields where chlorpyrifos was recently sprayed and several workers who entered the fields were sickened and required medical care. The Obama EPA had initially proposed a fine nearly nine times larger.

In February 2020, after pressure from consumer, medical, scientific groups and in face of growing calls for bans around the world, Corteva AgriScience (formerly DowDuPont) said it would phase out production of chlorpyrifos, but the chemical remains legal for other companies to make and sell.

According to an analysis published in July 2020, U.S. regulators relied on falsified data provided by Dow Chemical to allow unsafe levels of chlorpyrifos into American homes for years. The analysis from University of Washington researchers said the inaccurate findings were the result of a chlorpyrifos dosing study done in the early 1970s for Dow.

In September 2020 the EPA issued its third risk assessment on chlorpyrifos, saying “despite several years of study, peer review, and public process, the science addressing neurodevelopmental effects remains unresolved,” and it still could be used in food production.

The decision came after multiple meetings between the EPA and Corteva.

Groups and states sue EPA

Following the Trump administration’s decision to delay any ban until at least 2022, Pesticide Action Network and Natural Resources Defense Council filed suit against the EPA in April 2017, seeking to force the government to follow through with the Obama administration’s recommendations to ban chlorpyrifos. In August 2018, a federal appeals court found that the EPA broke the law by continuing to allow use of chlorpyrifos, and ordered EPA to finalize its proposed ban within two months. After more delays, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced in July 2019 that EPA would not ban the chemical.

Several states have sued the EPA over its failure to ban chlorpyrifos, including California, New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland, Vermont and Oregon. The states argue in court documents that chlorpyrifos should be banned in food production due to the dangers associated with it.

Earthjustice has also filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court seeking a nationwide ban on behalf of groups advocating for environmentalists, farmworkers and people with learning disabilities.

On April 29, 2021, the U.S. Judge Jed S. Rakoff  of the Ninth Circuit issued a decision, finding the EPA had engaged in an “egregious delay” that exposed a generation of American children to unsafe levels of chlorpyrifos.”  He ordered the EPA to issue a final regulation within 60 days that modifies or revokes the registration for chlorpyrifos.

Medical and scientific studies

Developmental neurotoxicity

“The epidemiological studies reviewed herein have reported statistically significant correlations between prenatal exposures to CPF [chlorpyrifos] and postnatal neurological complications, particularly cognitive deficits that are also associated with disruption of the structural integrity of the brain…. Various preclinical research groups throughout the world have consistently demonstrated that CPF is a developmental neurotoxicant. The developmental CPF neurotoxicity, which is well supported by studies using different animal models, routes of exposure, vehicles, and testing methods, is generally characterized by cognitive deficits and disruption of the structural integrity of the brain.” Developmental neurotoxicity of the organophosphorus insecticide chlorpyrifos: from clinical findings to preclinical models and potential mechanisms. Journal of Neurochemistry, 2017.

“Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers.” Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. Lancet Neurology, 2014.

Childrens’ IQ & cognitive development

Longitudinal birth cohort study of inner-city mothers and children found that “higher prenatal CPF [chlorpyrifos] exposure, as measured in umbilical cord blood plasma, was associated with decreases in cognitive functioning on two different WISC-IV indices, in a sample of urban minority children at 7 years of age…the Working Memory Index was the most strongly associated with CPF exposure in this population.” Seven-Year Neurodevelopmental Scores and Prenatal Exposure to Chlorpyrifos, a Common Agricultural Pesticide. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2011.

Birth cohort study of predominantly Latino farmworker families in California associated a metabolite of organophosphate pesticides found in the urine in pregnant women with poorer scores in their children for memory, processing speed, verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning and IQ.  “Our findings suggest that prenatal exposure to OP [organophosphate] pesticides, as measured by urinary DAP [dialkyl phosphate] metabolites in women during pregnancy, is associated with poorer cognitive abilities in children at 7 years of age. Children in the highest quintile of maternal DAP concentrations had an average deficit of 7.0 IQ points compared with those in the lowest quintile. Associations were linear, and we observed no threshold.” Prenatal Exposure to Organophosphate Pesticides and IQ in 7-Year-Old Children. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2011.

Prospective cohort study of women and their children findings “suggest that prenatal exposure to organophosphates is negatively associated with cognitive development, particularly perceptual reasoning, with evidence of effects beginning at 12 months and continuing through early childhood.” Prenatal Exposure to Organophosphates, Paraoxonase 1, and Cognitive Development in Childhood. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2011.

Prospective cohort study of an inner-city population found that children with high levels of exposure to chlorpyrifos “scored, on average, 6.5 points lower on the Bayley Psychomotor Development Index and 3.3 points lower on the Bayley Mental Development Index at 3 years of age compared with those with lower levels of exposure. Children exposed to higher, compared with lower, chlorpyrifos levels were also significantly more likely to experience Psychomotor Development Index and Mental Development Index delays, attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and pervasive developmental disorder problems at 3 years of age.” Impact of Prenatal Chlorpyrifos Exposure on Neurodevelopment in the First 3 Years of Life Among Inner-City Children. Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 2006.

Longitudinal birth cohort study in an agricultural region of California extends “previous findings of associations between PON1 genotype and enzyme levels and certain domains of neurodevelopment through early school age, presenting new evidence that adverse associations between DAP [dialkyl phosphate]levels and IQ may be strongest in children of mothers with the lowest levels of PON1 enzyme.” Organophosphate pesticide exposure, PON1, and neurodevelopment in school-age children from the CHAMACOS study.  Environmental Research, 2014.

Autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders

Population based case-control study found that, “Prenatal or infant exposure to a priori selected pesticides—including glyphosate, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and permethrin—were associated with increased odds of developing autism spectrum disorder.” Prenatal and infant exposure to ambient pesticides and autism spectrum disorder in children: population based case-control study. BMJ, 2019.

Population-based case-control study “observed positive associations between ASD [autism spectrum disorders] and prenatal residential proximity to organophosphate pesticides in the second (for chlorpyrifos) and third trimesters (organophosphates overall)”. Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Prenatal Residential Proximity to Agricultural Pesticides: The CHARGE Study. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2014.

See also: Tipping the Balance of Autism Risk: Potential Mechanisms Linking Pesticides and Autism. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2012.

Brain anomalies

“Our findings indicate that prenatal CPF [chlorpyrifos] exposure, at levels observed with routine (nonoccupational) use and below the threshold for any signs of acute exposure, has a measureable effect on brain structure in a sample of 40 children 5.9–11.2 y of age. We found significant abnormalities in morphological measures of the cerebral surface associated with higher prenatal CPF exposure….Regional enlargements of the cerebral surface predominated and were located in the superior temporal, posterior middle temporal, and inferior postcentral gyri bilaterally, and in the superior frontal gyrus, gyrus rectus, cuneus, and precuneus along the mesial wall of the right hemisphere”. Brain anomalies in children exposed prenatally to a common organophosphate pesticide.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2012.

Fetal growth

This study “saw a highly significant inverse association between umbilical cord chlorpyrifos levels and both birth weight and birth length among infants in the current cohort born prior to U.S. EPA regulatory actions to phase out residential uses of the insecticide.” Biomarkers in assessing residential insecticide exposures during pregnancy and effects on fetal growth. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 2005.

Prospective, multiethnic cohort study found that “when the level of maternal PON1 activity was taken into account, maternal levels of chlorpyrifos above the limit of detection coupled with low maternal PON1 activity were associated with a significant but small reduction in head circumference. In addition, maternal PON1 levels alone, but not PON1 genetic polymorphisms, were associated with reduced head size. Because small head size has been found to be predictive of subsequent cognitive ability, these data suggest that chlorpyrifos may have a detrimental effect on fetal neurodevelopment among mothers who exhibit low PON1 activity.” In Utero Pesticide Exposure, Maternal Paraoxonase Activity, and Head Circumference.  Environmental Health Perspectives, 2003.

Prospective cohort study of minority mothers and their newborns “confirm our earlier findings of an inverse association between chlorpyrifos levels in umbilical cord plasma and birth weight and length…Further, a dose-response relationship was additionally seen in the present study. Specifically, the association between cord plasma chlorpyrifos and reduced birth weight and length was found principally among newborns with the highest 25% of exposure levels.” Prenatal Insecticide Exposures and Birth Weight and Length among an Urban Minority Cohort. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2004.

Lung Cancer  

In an evaluation of over 54,000 pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study, scientists at the National Cancer Institute reported that the incidence of lung cancer was associated with chlorpyrifos exposure. “In this analysis of cancer incidence among chlorpyrifos-exposed licensed pesticide applicators in North Carolina and Iowa, we found a statistically significant trend of increasing risk of lung cancer, but not of any other cancer examined, with increasing chlorpyrifos exposure.” Cancer Incidence Among Pesticide Applicators Exposed to Chlorpyrifos in the Agricultural Health Study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2004.

Parkinson’s Disease

Case-control study of people living in California’s Central Valley reported that ambient exposure to 36 commonly used organophosphate pesticides separately increased the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. The study “adds strong evidence” that organophosphate pesticides are “implicated” in the etiology of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. The association between ambient exposure to organophosphates and Parkinson’s disease risk. Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 2014.

Birth outcomes

Multiethnic parent cohort of pregnant women and newborns found that chlorpyrifos “was associated with decreased birth weight and birth length overall (p = 0.01 and p = 0.003, respectively) and with lower birth weight among African Americans (p = 0.04) and reduced birth length in Dominicans (p < 0.001)”. Effects of Transplacental Exposure to Environmental Pollutants on Birth Outcomes in a Multiethnic Population. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2003.

Neuroendocrine disruption

“Through the analysis of complex sex-dimorphic behavioral patterns we show that neurotoxic and endocrine disrupting activities of CPF [chlorpyrifos] overlap. This widely diffused organophosphorus pesticide might thus be considered as a neuroendocrine disruptor possibly representing a risk factor for sex-biased neurodevelopmental disorders in children.” Sex dimorphic behaviors as markers of neuroendocrine disruption by environmental chemicals: The case of chlorpyrifos. NeuroToxicology, 2012.

Tremor

“The present findings show that children with high prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos were significantly more likely to show mild or mild to moderate tremor in one or both arms when assessed between the ages of 9 and 13.9 years of age….Taken together, growing evidence suggests that prenatal exposure to CPF [chlorpyrifos], at current standard usage levels, is associated with a range of persistent and inter-related developmental problems.” Prenatal exposure to the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos and childhood tremor. NeuroToxicology, 2015.

Cost of chlorpyrifos

Cost estimates of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the European Union found that “Organophosphate exposures were associated with 13.0 million (sensitivity analysis, 4.24 million to 17.1 million) lost IQ points and 59 300 (sensitivity analysis, 16 500 to 84 400) cases of intellectual disability, at costs of €146 billion (sensitivity analysis, €46.8 billion to €194 billion).” Neurobehavioral Deficits, Diseases, and Associated Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2015.

Thyroid in mice

“The present study showed that exposure of CD1 mice, during critical windows of prenatal and postnatal development, at CPF [chlorpyrifos] dose levels below those inhibiting brain AchE, can induce alterations in thyroid.” Developmental Exposure to Chlorpyrifos Induces Alterations in Thyroid and Thyroid Hormone Levels Without Other Toxicity Signs in Cd1 Mice.  Toxicological Sciences, 2009.

Problems with industry studies

“In March 1972, Frederick Coulston and colleagues at the Albany Medical College reported results of an intentional chlorpyrifos dosing study to the study’s sponsor, Dow Chemical Company. Their report concluded that 0.03 mg/kg-day was the chronic no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) for chlorpyrifos in humans. We demonstrate here that a proper analysis by the original statistical method should have found a lower NOAEL (0.014 mg/kg-day), and that use of statistical methods first available in 1982 would have shown that even the lowest dose in the study had a significant treatment effect. The original analysis, conducted by Dow-employed statisticians, did not undergo formal peer review; nevertheless, EPA cited the Coulston study as credible research and kept its reported NOAEL as a point of departure for risk assessments throughout much of the 1980′s and 1990′s. During that period, EPA allowed chlorpyrifos to be registered for multiple residential uses that were later cancelled to reduce potential health impacts to children and infants. Had appropriate analyses been employed in the evaluation of this study, it is likely that many of those registered uses of chlorpyrifos would not have been authorized by EPA. This work demonstrates that reliance by pesticide regulators on research results that have not been properly peer-reviewed may needlessly endanger the public.” Flawed analysis of an intentional human dosing study and its impact on chlorpyrifos risk assessments. Environment International, 2020.

“In our review of raw data on a prominent pesticide, chlorpyrifos, and a related compound, discrepancies were discovered between the actual observations and the conclusions drawn by the test laboratory in the report submitted for authorization of the pesticide.” Safety of Safety Evaluation of Pesticides: developmental neurotoxicity of chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl. Environmental Health, 2018.

*

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: Imaging by Bradley Peterson, via Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; New York Times

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Our world, once thriving with energy and life, has now become a dystopian landscape of barren streets and masked people with a look of foreboding in their eyes.

Governments around the world have enforced unprecedented restrictions on people’s lives, imposing lockdowns that closed down most of society for months at a time. Stopping people from visiting their family, isolating the elderly in care homes and destroying millions of people’s livelihoods.

These draconian laws were brought in to control an alleged pandemic created by a new virus called SARS-CoV-2 that creates the respiratory illness of Covid 19.

The numbers of so called ‘cases’ and deaths ‘attributed to Covid’ are churned out daily by the media fanning the fear. The hurricane force driving this pandemic is the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR). So, it’s vitally important that we understand exactly how the RT-PCR test works and its limitations.

The PCR test was invented by the late American Kary Mullis in the mid 1980’s for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1993 in Chemistry. Mullis died in August 2019.

One of the PCR’s applications is to increase genetic material found in crime scenes in order to help the police identify the criminal. The PCR test increases the amount of genetic material by using a Cycle Threshold (CT). Each CT rate doubles the amount of genetic material.

The CT rate that PCR tests are run at relating to whether someone has SARS-CoV-2 in the sample, is vitally important. Dr. Roger Hodkinson, a pathologist knowledgeable in PCR, told me that PCR tests should be below 32 cycles. If you run a PCR at over 32 CT, you start to get a lot of false positives. The higher the CT the greater the liklihood of false postive results.

The importance of the CT value was shown in a landmark court case in Portugal in November 2020. Four German tourists were forced to quarantine in a hotel in the Azores after one of them tested positive with a PCR test. The Germans brought a court case stating that they were ‘illegally confined’ in the hotel.

The Germans won their case when the Lisbon Appeal Court ruled that they were illegally held in a hotel based on a PCR test. The judges referred to a study of the PCR test by the Oxford Academic at the end of September. The study showed that any asymptomatic person being tested with a PCR test at a 35 CT or higher ‘’the probability of…receiving a false positive is 97% or higher.’’

Although it is unknown exactly at what CT value the German tourist’s PCR test was run at, virtually all European and US labs are running PCR tests at 35 CT or above, often at 40 CT.

The judges were also critical of the fact that the supposed infected person was never seen by a doctor. Only a doctor can make a medical diagnosis. This very important court case was totally ignored by the mainstream media (MSM).

Another problem with PCR tests is getting false positives from the DNA of other organisms, often referred to as cross reactions. There are billions of different DNA’s from the multitude of life forms on our planet. Some of the cells in other organisms will have parts of their genetic sequence that are identical to SARS-CoV-2.  A PCR test can give a positive for a partial genetic sequence match with DNA contamination from a plant, animal or other life form.

This was further verified by the late President of Tanzania John Magufuli. Magufuli wanted to test the reliability of the PCR test. His government randomly obtained samples from different non-human entities. Three that were tested was a goat, a sheep and a pawpaw ( a type of fruit). The samples were given human names and ages. In May 2020 Magufuli stated that the pawpaw and goat tested positive.

Due to the highly sensitive nature of PCR, it can also pick up viral fragments that may represent a recent SARSCoV2 infection. Let’s say you were sick with Covid 19 and then made a full recovery. Even 3 or 4 weeks later, you could still test positive, because the test cannot differentiate between a ’live’ or dead virus.

It’s also incorrect to assume that a positive PCR test equates to a clinical diagnosis of a disease in people. Positive results are not ‘cases’, they are simply positive results, many of which are actually false positives. Never in the history of medicine would a medical diagnosis be based solely on a PCR test. You need the skill and expertise of a doctor to evaluate symptoms and examine the patient. Dr Hodkinson added, “in medicine we don’t treat the numbers, we treat the whole patient”.

We keep hearing the number of supposed ‘cases’ by governments and media worldwide, but a positive PCR is never automatically considered a case in medicine.  A case is someone who is visibly sick and/or is presenting to hospital, not a healthy person who happened to test positive with a test that is prone to many errors.

January 2020 – The Corman/Drosten PCR Protocol

In January 2020 a scientific paper was published by Eurosurveillance which is a scientific journal. Its commonly referred to as the Corman-Drosten paper, although other scientists contributed to it. Both Christian Drosten and Victor Corman are German virologists.

The RT-PCR test protocol in this paper was recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO)  to countries worldwide. This test was incorrectly said to be the ‘Gold Standard’ for testing people for SARS-CoV-2. The established ‘Gold Standard’ is DNA sequencing by the Sanger method.

In November 2020 an extensive review of the Corman-Drosten PCR protocol was carried out by many scientists (PCR experts) and was submitted to Eurosurveillance. The report cited 10 major flaws with the Corman-Drosten paper and asked Eurosurveillance to retract it. I will cover 3 of these major flaws, but a link to the full review report is provided at the end of this article.

  • In January 2020 Drosten did not have a sample of the virus (SARS-CoV-2) to design a PCR test that would accurately test for the virus. The Drosten test was based on, quote ‘’…in silco (theoretical) sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China, because at the time neither control material of infectious (‘live’) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 nor isolated genomic RNA of the virus was available to the authors.
  • The Drosten paper recommends a CT value of 45 Cycles. As mentioned previously, any PCR test run at 35 CT (or over), will return an enormous number of false positives. Quote …if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US) ( including NHS laboratories in the UK ) , the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%. A reasonable CT value should not exceed 30. …a CT value of 45 is scientifically and diagnostically absolutely meaningless.
  • No Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) for laboratories to run the PCR tests. Quote, There should be a SOP available…so that all laboratories are able to set up the identical same test conditions. To have a validated universal SOP is essential, because it facilitates data comparison within and between countries…It points to flawed science that such an SOP does not exist. The laboratories are thus free to conduct the test as they consider appropriate, resulting in an enormous amount of variation.

It defies belief that the WHO would recommend a PCR protocol with a CT value of 45, unless their intention was to create as many false positives as possible.

German/American Lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich

Reiner Fuellmich is the lawyer who successfully won lawsuits against Deutsche Bank and Volkswagen. Fuellmich created the German Corona Investigative Committee on July 10th 2020 with three other people, with Viviane Fischer and two other attorneys, Dr. Justus P. Hoffman and Antonia Fischer.

They decided to ask three questions. How dangerous is the virus really? How reliable is the Drosten-PCR test? How much damage do these anti-corona (Lockdowns) measures do, both to the economy and to the health and wellbeing of the world’s population?

As Fuellmich says: Now the latter is very easily answered. This is probably the worst crisis that the world has ever been in. With so many people dying…completely in vain, people who didn’t get an operation, surgical procedures that were postponed… doctors and nurses whom I have known for years tell me, Reiner, there’s something wrong, this entire hospital is almost empty, there’s no one here.

… I called a good friend of mine, someone who knows a lot about medicine, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg.  Wodarg is the doctor who stepped in 12 years ago when we had a very similar situation with the Swine Flu (2009). …the same people who advanced the theory of ‘’everybody’s going to die’’, did it back then. Including Prof Drosten, including Neil Ferguson of Imperial College of London (UK).

They all pushed this story, but eventually that (the Swine Flu) turned out to be just the common flu. By the way, that’s what this looks like, the WHO issued a statement which confirmed Professor John Ioannidis study, from Stanford University, that the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of Covid 19 is between 0.14 and 0.15, which is about the same as the flu. Bear in mind that both Ioannidis and wHO based their projections on the worldwide official figures of Covid deaths that are based on the totally flawed PCR tests. Once you remove a large percentage of the deaths as false positives, the IFR would be far lower.

Fuellmich spoke with many other experts, including Professor Sucharit Bhakdi (retired from the University of Mainz) and Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Vice president of Pfizer.

They all came to the same conclusion, whatever we’re dealing with, this is no worse than the common flu.

Fuellmich and his team decided early on to focus on the many flaws with the PCR test as the most important evidence that proves that there was no medical pandemic. As Fuellmich says, There’s a false positive PCR pandemic, not a Covid pandemic. It (the PCR test) is not even approved for diagnostic purposes – that is why this test only has a so-called emergency use authorization in the US, and not full approval.

Fuellmich is part of a team of over 30 lawyers, from Germany, the US and Canada. In the US and Canada, the lawyers will be leading class action lawsuits representing many people whose livelihoods were destroyed by the lockdowns. Fuellmich says that this is a deliberate crime against humanity; ‘’this has nothing to do with the world’s health.’’

Summation

I would like you to consider a question.

Why do you think that governments around the world ignored the hundreds of scientists that were telling them about the many flaws that the PCR test has relating to testing people for SARS-CoV-2?

One thing we now know for certain, there never was a pandemic. There was the illusion of a pandemic created by the PCR testing fraud. The mass testing of millions of healthy people which produced millions of false positives. In unison with a campaign of fear promoted by governments through the media.

Recently I was walking with my 3 yr. old niece Emily in a large town in the UK. What was once a bustling shopping centre was now just rows of closed shops. I recalled that there was an open-air food vendor marketplace which was open.

As we drew closer, we could hear someone singing. There was a well-dressed young lady, an aspiring singer and actress. She then started singing ‘’Somewhere over the Rainbow’’ from the Wizard of Oz.  She sang quite beautifully so quite a crowd had gathered.

For those few minutes everyone’s hearts and spirits were lifted, even Emily started dancing. I began thinking of the performing arts, the dancers, actors, singers and theatre. So many people’s lives have been damaged by these appalling and unnecessary lockdowns.

We have learned a few important lessons from this though. Firstly, our need as human beings to embrace each other. To reach out to each other, have a hug, shake hands and talk to each other without a disgusting mask on.

It has also shown us that we should never allow any government to take away our inalienable human rights ever again. We should never allow a government to dictate to us where we can go or who we can see. Governments should never be allowed to force us to take experimental vaccines in order to access public services, or to travel anywhere we chose to go.

Let’s rise up and remove the shackles of false fear and embrace each other. In the immortal words of Martin Luther King Let freedom ring…from every mountainside, let freedom ring. when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city…we will be…free at last. Free at last.

In the spirit of celebrating our humanity, I would like to leave you with part of the beautiful poem ‘’Song of Myself’’ by Walt Whitman

I depart as air—I shake my white locks at the runaway sun;
I effuse my flesh in eddies, and drift it in lacy jags.

I bequeathe myself to the dirt, to grow from the grass I love;
If you want me again, look for me under your boot-soles.

You will hardly know who I am, or what I mean;
But I shall be good health to you nevertheless,
And filter and fibre your blood.

Failing to fetch me at first, keep encouraged;
Missing me one place, search another;
I stop somewhere, waiting for you.

*

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

You can contact Gavin Phillips at [email protected]. Gavin encourages whistleblowers to contact him so we can expose this Covid fraud. Twitter: @photopro28, Telgram: Gavin Phillips

Sources

Dr. Roger Hodkinson and Klaus Steger reviewed the PCR science, Portuguese Appeal Court

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507937-covid-pcr-test-fail/

The Corman-Drosten review paper

Notes

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich reviewed the section about his work in an email exchange with Gavin Phillips.

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.

***

The Associated Press news agency has faced fierce criticism from journalists and academics for sacking a newly graduated news associate over her pro-Palestinian activism while at university. 

Emily Wilder, a Jewish American who graduated from Stanford University last year, started her position at AP on 3 May. Just 16 days later, she was fired.

Wilder was told that her dismissal, announced in an AP staff memo that has been widely shared online, was over a violation of the company’s social media policy.

Speaking to Middle East Eye, the news agency confirmed that she was dismissed for violations of AP’s social media policy, stating that the violations had occurred “during her time at AP”.

While the agency did not explain which posts in question may have violated the policy – just that she had “showed clear bias” – Wilder has said that she is certain it was the opinions she shared on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory that led to her sacking.

On Sunday, Wilder posted on Twitter a critique of the language used within mainstream media when covering issues related to Israel and Palestine.

“‘Objectivity’ feels fickle when the basic terms we use to report news implicitly stake a claim,” she wrote. “Using ‘israel’ but never ‘palestine,’ or ‘war’ but not ‘siege and occupation’ are political choices – yet media make those exact choices all the time without being flagged as biased.”

The discussion over the problematic language used to cover events in Israel and Palestine is one that Middle East Eye has covered extensively in recent weeks.

But the day after Wilder made that post, a group named the Stanford College Republicans began sharing screenshots of other posts in which the then-college student had criticised Israel’s occupation and related policies, as well as a picture of Wilder taking part in a pro-Palestine protest in New York City.

The group also accused Wilder of being “a leader” of pro-Palestinian groups, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and Students for Justice in Palestine – a group which they claimed without evidence had links to Hamas – during her time at Stanford between 2016 and 2020.

The attention to her previous posts quickly grew, as critical stories about Wilder’s hiring were published online by right-wing sites, including Fox News, the Washington Free Beacon and the Federalist.

‘The campaign against me’

In some of the articles, the websites attempted to link Wilder’s hiring to Israel’s recent air strike on a high rise building hosting the Associated Press’s Gaza bureau, as well as several other media offices, including one belonging to MEE.

Meanwhile, Wilder, speaking to the Washington Post, said that she was told implicitly that a review of her social media activity was initiated by the AP after her old posts had been publicised by various websites.

“This was a result of the campaign against me,” she said. “To me, it feels like AP folded to the ridiculous demands and cheap bullying of organizations and individuals.”

A spokesperson with the AP, however, told MEE that her dismissal was strictly in the interest of the safety of the agency’s other journalists around the world.

“We have this policy so the comments of one person cannot create dangerous conditions for our journalists covering the story,” said Lauren Easton, global director of media relations and corporate communications.

“Every AP journalist is responsible for safeguarding our ability to report on this conflict, or any other, with fairness and credibility, and cannot take sides in public forums,” she continued.

But Liz Jackson, a senior staff attorney at Palestine Legal, a US-based legal advocacy group, slammed Wilder’s sacking as “censorship” with an anti-Palestine bias.

“This epitomizes the censorship endemic to public conversation on Palestine. First the @AP is bombed by Israel, and then, in response to a rightwing cancel campaign, it fires its own reporter because she was too vocal about Palestinian lives as a college student,” Jackson said in a post to Twitter on Thursday.

“Emily Wilder has a rich background advocating for freedom as a Jewish Palestine solidarity activist and as a talented reporter covering mass incarceration, policing and social movements. The @AP should reinstate her immediately,” she continued.

Scores of other activists, rights groups and journalists have also spoken up against Wilder’s sacking.

“Not looking good for the @AP,” New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen tweeted, sharing a story about Wilder.

“So let me get this straight. The @AP just fired a young reporter because she was part of Students for Justice in Palestine in college?” AJ+ producer, Dena Takruri asked. “The same AP that just had its office in Gaza bombed by Israel?”

Meanwhile, others questioned what the reaction might have been if the issue had been in reverse.

“I know this is trite to say but just f**king imagine what would happen if the AP fired someone for having been a member of a Zionist group in college,” journalist Ashley Feinberg posted.

“This is exactly the issue with the rhetoric around ‘cancel culture’,” Wilder said, speaking to SFGate. “To Republicans, cancel culture is usually seen as teens or young people online advocating that people be held accountable over accusations of racism or whatever it may be.

“But when it comes down to who actually has to deal with the lifelong ramifications of the selective enforcement of cancel culture – specifically over the issue of Israel and Palestine – it’s always the same side.”

*

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: Emily Wilder/Twitter

Time to End the Silence on Israel’s Nuclear Weapons

May 24th, 2021 by Mehrnaz Shahabi

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

While Israel’s large arsenal of nuclear weapons is exempt from any discussion, its government drives the suspicion of Iran’s nuclear energy program, writes Mehrnaz Shahabi.

The attack on Natanz nuclear enrichment plant in Iran, on April 11, targeting underground centrifuges operating under (IAEA) safeguards, was an act of nuclear terror with the potential to kill and harm many thousands of human beings and irreparably contaminate the environment.

Although Israel has not confirmed or denied responsibility, the media have almost universally attributed the attack to Israel, citing senior American and Israeli intelligence officials confirming Israel’s involvement.

 According to The Jerusalem Post,

“Former Mossad chief Danny Yatom expressed concerns about the leak about Israeli involvement to the Times, warning that it could impact Israel’s operational capability, in an interview with Army Radio on Monday. ‘If indeed this thing is the result of an operation involving Israel, this leak is very serious,’ said Yatom. ‘It is detrimental to the Israeli interest and the fight against Iranian attempts to acquire nuclear weapons. There are actions that must remain in the dark.’” 

Western members of the UN Security Council and signatories to the JCPOA, media establishments, pundits and human rights organizations, i.e, the frontline crusaders against “Iran’s nuclear threats” and “human rights violations,” have failed to condemn this abhorrent crime. 

This is not the first time Israel is targeting nuclear plants.  Bombing Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 and an alleged nuclear fuel plant in Deir al-Zour in Syria in 2007 were precedents.  Since 2010, Israel has started a campaign of assassination of Iranian scientists and targeted Iran’s civilian nuclear infrastructure. 

In June 2010, Natanz enrichment plant was attacked by the Stuxnet virus, a malicious computer worm, collaboratively made by the U.S. and Israel — entered into Natanz with the collaboration of the Dutch Intelligence  — which caused the centrifuges to accelerate until they disintegrated. 

On July 2, 2020, in a wave of terrorist attacks on Iran’s industrial, military and nuclear sites, a bomb blast caused a powerful explosion and fire in Natanz nuclear plant which destroyed a large number of centrifuges.  Mossad chief, Yossi Cohen, told The New York Times that Israel had detonated a bomb and U.S. and Israeli officials had expressed certainty that Israel was responsible for the incidents at the military and nuclear sites. 

Anti-aircraft guns guarding Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility in 2006. (Hamed Saber, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)

All these Israeli acts of aggression, with potentially catastrophic human and environmental consequences, and in clear violation of international law and the UN Charter, have been met with total impunity, often with the stated rational that Israel is trying to stop Iran and other Middle Eastern countries from developing nuclear weapons.

However, Israel — leading the scaremongering and fabrications against Iran’s civilian nuclear program for years and actively sabotaging the 2015 nuclear deal — is the ONLY country in possession of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. 

Israel has adamantly refused to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Neither has it signed and ratified the Biological Weapons Convention nor ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Started Half Century Ago

Israel’s nuclear weapons program started in the 1950s, assisted by the French who helped construct the Dimona nuclear reactor and secret reprocessing plant for separating plutonium from spent reactor fuel.  The program accelerated in the wake of the 1967 war.  Julian Borger in The Guardian on Jan. 15, 2014, provided a valuable outline of  “The truth about Israel’s secret nuclear arsenal,” explaining how,“Israeli agents charged with buying fissile material and state-of-the-art technology found their way into some of the most sensitive industrial establishments in the world.”

Israel’s theft and secret acquisition of material and expertise for its nuclear warheads by a sophisticated spy ring named Lakam (acronym for Science Liaison Bureau), although amply documented, remains an open secret.  The same countries that secretly sold or turned a blind eye to Israel’s illegal trafficking of nuclear material and technology — the U.S., Britain, Germany and France and even Norway — are now the staunchest protagonists against Iran’s civilian nuclear program, and continue to turn a blind eye to Israel’s acts of nuclear terror.  Borger wrote:

In 1968 the CIA director Richard Helms told President Johnson that Israel had indeed managed to build nuclear weapons and that its air force had conducted sorties to practise dropping them. … At a meeting in 1976 …. the CIA deputy director Carl Duckett informed a dozen officials from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the agency suspected some of the fissile fuel in Israel’s bombs was weapons-grade uranium stolen under America’s nose from a processing plant in Pennsylvania.”

Not only was an alarming amount of fissile material going missing at the company, Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (Numec), but it had been visited by a veritable who’s-who of Israeli intelligence, including Rafael Eitan, described by the firm as an Israeli defence ministry “chemist,” but, in fact, a top Mossad operative who went on to head Lakam. …

On Sept. 22, 1979, a U.S. satellite, Vela 6911, detected the double-flash typical of a nuclear weapon test off the coast of South Africa. Leonard Weiss, a mathematician and an expert on nuclear proliferation, was working as a Senate adviser at the time and after being briefed on the incident by U.S. intelligence agencies and the country’s nuclear weapons laboratories, he became convinced a nuclear test, in contravention to the Limited Test Ban Treaty, had taken place. … Israeli sources told [Seymour] Hersh the flash picked up by the Vela satellite was actually the third of a series of Indian Ocean nuclear tests that Israel conducted in cooperation with South Africa.”

Mordechai Vanunu,  who had worked as an engineer in the secret Negev Nuclear Research Centre near Dimona in the 1970s, on a trip to London in September 1986, blew the whistle to Sunday Times journalist, Peter Hounam, revealing 57 covertly taken photographs and a detailed description of his knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons program including separation of lithium-6, needed for the production of tritium, an essential ingredient of fusion-boosted fission bombs.  From the information provided by Vanunu it was possible to estimate that Israel had sufficient plutonium for about 150 nuclear weapons

Vanunu’s revelations were published by The Sunday Times in October 1986.  Vanunu was lured to Rome by Mossad agents, kidnapped and taken to Israel on Sept. 30, 1986.  

Convicted of espionage and treason, Vanunu was placed in solitary jail for 18 years.  His terms of release on April 21, 2004, have barred Vanunu from speaking to journalists, leaving Israel or traveling to the West Bank.  Thirty five years after his initial imprisonment, repeated court hearings continue to rule he is bound by the terms of his release, unable to leave Israel or talk to journalists because of his possession of secrets and sensitive information dangerous to Israeli state’s security. 

Iran, on the other hand, has been a longstanding member of the NPT. Despite an early history of covert activity in the 1990s in order to avoid the U.S.’ heavy-handed obstructions of Iran’s legitimate purchases and contracts for its newly fledged civilian nuclear energy program, there has been no credible evidence of a weapons dimension to Iran’s nuclear program. 

Historian and investigative journalist Gareth Porter, in his seminal book, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare  (2014) comprehensively argues how what is cited as evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions, such as the alleged smuggled laptop and Parchin test chamber, were concocted by Israel and the U.S. to create the fabricated crisis around Iran’s nuclear program. 

History of Co-operation & Concessions

May 27, 2005: Javad Zarif (left), then Iran’s UN ambassador, at the conclusion of the 2005 review conference of parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, UN headquarters in New York. (UN Photo)

Iran has been fully cooperating with the IAEA and the West to address every concern about Iran’s nuclear energy program and these attempts at transparency and confidence building have been thwarted by the U.S. under pressure from Israel.  

In 2002, the National Council of Resistance or Modjahedin-e-Khalgh (MEK), which until  Sept. 28, 2012, was on the U.S. State Department’s terrorist list, “revealed” to the IAEA the existence of two nuclear sites: Natanz uranium enrichment plant and Arak’s heavy water reactor, both still under construction. However, Iran was not obliged to allow inspection or even inform the IAEA of the existence of these facilities until six months before the introduction of nuclear materials. Iran was not a signatory to the new Safeguards Agreement introduced in 1992.

As the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) document further chronicles,

To boost confidence in its nuclear programme during the course of two years of negotiations with the EU3 (France, UK, Germany), the Iranian government voluntarily suspended its nuclear enrichment programme and in December 2003 also voluntarily implemented the IAEA’s Additional Protocol for more intrusive inspections than those required under the NPT until February 2006, when under U.S. pressure, Iran’s file was reported to the UN Security Council.”

Iran “offered to implement this again subject to the return of its nuclear file from the Security Council to the IAEA,” the document says. It goes on:

“Iran has invited Western companies to develop Iran’s civilian nuclear programme. Such joint ventures would create the best assurance that the enriched uranium would not be diverted to a weapons programme. ….  but the U.S. and its allies have refused Iran’s offer.”

The nuclear swap (Tehran Agreement) deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil in 2010, according to which Tehran agreed to swap 1200kg of its low enriched uranium with uranium rods already enriched to 20 percent for cancer treatment, was a huge compromise on the part of Iran, again rejected by the U.S.

In September 2011, then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, speaking to the UN General Assembly, announced Iran’s preparedness to suspend the enrichment of uranium to the higher percentage of 20 percent if the West provided Iran with uranium rods enriched to that level “If they give us the 20 percent (enriched) fuel, we will immediately halt 20 percent (enrichment),” he said.

This offer too was ignored by the Obama administration. On Jan. 1, 2012, Iran announced the domestic testing and production of its first fuel rods for the Tehran Research Reactor.

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)

Secretary Kerry shakes hands with and bids goodbye to Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif at the Austria Center in Vienna, July 14, 2015, after Zarif read a declaration of the nuclear agreement in his native Farsi. (State Department)

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, seated, saying goodbye to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in Vienna, July 14, 2015, after Zarif read a declaration of the nuclear agreement in his native Farsi. (State Department)

After two years of extensive negotiations, Iran and the Security Council members plus Germany reached a time-bound agreement in 2015, which heavily — and very controversially in Iran — curbed Iran’s civilian nuclear program and placed it under the most stringent  inspections in the history of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in return for removing Security Council, U.S. And European Union sanctions and recognizing Iran’s right to enrichment.

In the face of powerful patriotic sentiments from many Iranians, Iran also accepted the intrusive inspections of the Additional Protocol, which would allow access to any sites including military sites, should the IAEA present evidence of suspicious nuclear-related activity

This concession, in circumstances of the military siege of the country and the fresh experiences of the aggressive bombardments of military and critical infrastructure of Iraq and Libya, is felt by many Iranians to be a dangerous colonial imposition under circumstances in which the other parties to the deal, Germany excepted, are all nuclear armed, as is Israel, Iran’s main regional adversary.

While, its large arsenal of nuclear weapons are exempt from any discussion and question, Israel drives the suspicion and the crisis over Iran’s nuclear energy program. According to Kelsey Davenport, director for non-proliferation policy with the Arms Control Association, “Iran is a unique case in that some key locations are subject to 24-hour surveillance and inspection teams are continually in Iran to verify its compliance with the agreement.”

All IAEA reports under the nuclear deal, from 2016 to September 2019, certified Iran’s full compliance with its commitments.  The U.S., however, from the start, under pressure from Israel and Saudi Arabia, obstructed an effective removal of sanctions, particularly financial and banking sanctions, and prevented its European allies to enter trades and investments in Iran through introducing a climate of uncertainty and fear of secondary sanctions.

The U.S., in February 2016, stopped nationals of countries in the Visa Waiver Program Act from entering the U.S. without a visa if they had traveled to Iran after March 1, 2011.  Dual nationals of VWP and Iran were also barred.

Former President Donald Trump’s announcement on May 8, 2018, of the U.S.’ withdrawal from the JCPOA and the imposition of the “highest level of economic sanctions” on Iran, was followed by then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s speech to the Heritage Foundation on May 21 presenting a “New Iran Strategy.”

In his typical, puffed-up, bullish style, Pompeo presented Iran with its “terms of surrender” in the form of 12 demands, which included: stopping enrichment and closing Iran’s heavy water reactor, providing unqualified access to all sites in the country, stopping Iran’s conventional defensive missile program, and ending support to strategic regional allies vital to Iran’s security and national and regional identity. 

Iran’s response to these “maximum pressure’ policies was to continue with all its commitments under the JCPOA, for another year.  On the anniversary of the U.S. withdrawal from the deal, in May 2019, Iran gave an ultimatum that unless other signatories reversed their aggressive non-compliance, Iran would use its right under articles 29 and 37 of the JCPOA to withdraw in part or in whole from its commitments under the deal, and on July 1, 2019, Iran began its incremental withdrawals. 

The assassination on Jan 3, 2020, of Iran’s revered General Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Qods Force that is at the forefront of the fight against  ISIS, led to a several millions strong mobilization of grief and anger in Iran and throughout the region. It has had unintended consequences for the perpetrators.  It has crystalized a more determined resistance to colonial rule and the dominant colonial discourse —  a discourse that has continued, despite the velvet gloves, into the Joe Biden administration.

Demonstrations in Iran over the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani. (Fars News Agency, CC BY 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

The new administration has reiterated Pompeo’s terms of surrender of Iran and made the fulfillment of its obligations, i.e., the removal of sanctions, conditional on Iran relinquishing its defensive missile program, its vital regional alliances and extending the timeframe and Iran’s obligations under the JCPOA.  Iran’s response has been to refuse to accept any demands and to insist on the verified, full removal of all sanctions.  Rooted in this emergent and growing national consciousness is a mood for no compromise, empty promises or neo-colonial threats. 

Iran’s response to Israel’s nuclear terror on April 11, which was intended to undermine any possibility of the revival of the JCPOA that doesn’t meet Israel’s demands, has been to increase its enrichment level at Natanz to 60 percent. This reflects the very powerful effect of the wave of anti-colonial consciousness and resistance, which is in no mood for an unequal compromise and understands that a strong lever is the necessary ingredient in negotiations, as well as that a more equal balance of power is the only effective guarantee for self-defense.

On April 28, Israel’s intelligence minister, Eli Cohen, repeated the Israeli threat that should the U.S. re-enter the JCPOA and remove the sanctions on Iran, Israel would hit Iran’s nuclear plants with long range missiles.  This threat too was met with silent acquiescence on the part of the U.S. and its Western allies, the same kind of silence that has met  Israel’s continued acts of ethnic cleansing, apartheid, house demolitions, settlement building, administrative detention of children, Gaza blockade, use of phosphorous bombs, flooding and contamination of agricultural land,  raiding Al-Aqsa Mosque in the holy month of Ramadan, torching trees and agricultural crops and bombarding residential apartment blocks in the besieged Gaza Strip.  

Israel’s free license to act with impunity is fast sliding into war. Only fools would believe that attacking Iran’s enrichment plants, its critical infrastructure, shipping, and scientific and military personnel, would remain unanswered, and could not spill over into a destructive regional war with global consequences, from which use of nuclear weapons can not be excluded.

The gravity of what is at stake demands action.  The only possible path to avoiding a catastrophic war and reaching a just peace in the Middle East, is, in the first instance, the demand that Israel disarm its  nuclear weapons and place its nuclear facilities under the same scrutiny as demanded from Iran. That would be in line with the longstanding goal, backed by the UN Security Council, of a Middle East Free of Nuclear Weapons.

*

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.

Mehrnaz Shahabi is an Iranian-British peace activist and independent researcher.  She has published articles on Iran-related issues on various progressive website.

Featured image: IAEA safeguard inspectors in a 2005 training exercise at Slovakia’s Mochovce nuclear power plant. (Dean Calma, IAEA, Flickr)


The author has started the following petition, which can be found, also in Farsi, on change.org.

Call for Nuclear Disarmament of Israel and a Nuclear-Free Middle East

We, the undersigned, strongly condemn the sabotage in the Natanz nuclear enrichment plant in Iran on 11 April 2021, as a form of nuclear terror. This attack has been almost universally attributed to Israel, including by the Israeli media, and confirmed by US and Israeli intelligence officials. Such attacks carry a serious risk of high level radioactive leakage which could potentially endanger the lives of thousands of innocent human beings and irreparably contaminate the environment causing long-term genetic malformations and disease, with far-reaching destructive consequences into the future.

It has been repeatedly verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran’s nuclear programme is peaceful and under a strict monitoring regime. Israel, in contrast, is the only nuclear weapons state in the Middle East as it is in possession of a large arsenal of nuclear weapons, which is the reason for the country’s refusal to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The deafening silence of the self-proclaimed international community in response to Israel’s nuclear terror could set a deadly precedent for its repetition and escalate into an endless chain of retaliations and an arms race in the already war-ravaged Middle East. Therefore, we call on the UN and the Security Council to responsibly and unreservedly condemn and hold Israel accountable for repeated dangerous and profoundly irresponsible attacks on civilian nuclear installations and the assassination of Iranian scientists. In addition, we urge UN member states to embark, as a matter of urgency, on the long-delayed task of nuclear disarmament of Israel and placing its nuclear programme under the supervision and monitoring of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in line with the long-standing drive to creating a Nuclear Free Middle East.

Abrahamian, Professor Ervand (Distinguished Professor of History, Baruch College and City University, NewYork)

Adib-Moghaddam, Professor Arshin (professor in Global Thought & Comparative Philosophies, School of Oriental and African Studies, London)

Azad, Dr Bahman (Executive Secretary, US Peace Council)

Baraka, Ajamu (National Organizer, Black Alliance for Peace, USA)

Brown, Dr Catherine (BA Cantab, MA, London, MSc Lond, PhD Cantab)

Brown, Dr Raymond (FRCPych, retired Consultant Psychotherapist, UK)

Chomsky, Professor Noam (Institute Professor Emeritus MIT, Laureate Professor U. of Arizona)

Coombe, Sheila (activist, Founder Frome Stop War)

Deane, Dr. Raymond (composer, author, political activist, Ireland)

Edalat, Professor Abbas (Professor of Computer Science and Mathematics, Imperial College, London, Founder of CASMII)

Ferrada de Noli, Prof Marcello (psychiatrist, professor emeritus of Epidemiology, Founder, Swedish Professors & Doctors for Human Rights)

Finkelstein, Dr Norman (political scientist, activist, former professor, author)

Flowers, Margaret (Director, Popular Resistance, USA)

Harris, Roger (Board Member of The  Task Force on the Americas)

Hedges, Chris (former Middle East Bureau Chief for The New York Times)

Lauria, Joe (Editor-in-Chief, Consortium News)

Mercouris, Alexander (Editor-In-Chief, The Duran)

Mohit, Dr Morteza, M.D. (social and political analyst, USA)

Porter, Gareth (journalist, historian, author)

Prashad, Vijay (historian, journalist, Executive-Director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, Chief Editor LeftWord Books)

Ramadani, Dr Sami (lecturer in sociology, activist, author)

Shahabi, Mehrnaz (peace and cultural activist, UK)

Shahabi, Mehrdad (peace and cultural activist, Iran)

Taherian, Dr. Mohammadreza (cultural activist, Iran)

Turner, Carol (Vice-Chair, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, London)

Farshid Vahedian (peace and cultural activist, U.S.)


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

WWIII Scenario

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As Senator, Vice President, and now President, your self-promoted/displayed empathy has a problem. You can’t seem to connect the Israeli military powerhouse’s occupation to the oppression and destruction of innocent Palestinian civilians, illegal seizure of Palestinian land/water, and daily violations of U.S. and international law. Israel’s military is deliberately bombing these families, the offices of American media, international medical facilities, and many local hospitals and water and electricity facilities with fighter jets and missiles made in America.

To know about what is happening daily, you do not need to rely on the evidence compiled by the U.S. mainstream media or foreign reporters on the ground in Gaza or your own intelligence agencies, just take it from the Israeli media and Israelis themselves.

Stop repeatedly mumbling the usual mantra to escape your presidential responsibilities for the military weaponry and political cover, including the U.S. Veto at the U.N. By your failure to act you have backed this Israeli-initiated aggression, as you have invariably favored prior illegal Israeli military attacks against U.S. ally Lebanon, and Syria and Iran in recent decades.

Although the Netanyahu regime prohibits Israeli journalists from entering Gaza or the West Bank to report reality, enough of the Israeli media carries the horrific devastation in Gaza with casualties and critical property destruction hundreds of times greater than that inflicted by the primitive Hamas rockets, 90% of which are shot down by the U.S.-funded “iron dome” anti-missile systems. The rest, with very few random exceptions, fall onto the desert floor, sometimes back into Gaza.

Israel needs these feeble, homemade rockets as the pretext for its massively greater attacks again and again against the civilian population during the past fifteen years. How else can it engage in such slaughter of entire extended families asleep in their crowded homes, destruction of schools, health clinics, media offices – against what the Israeli newspaper Haaretz has called a wholly defenseless, captive people? Israel is just defending itself, you keep saying, ignoring the imperial racist premise in that statement.

As Representative Cori Bush (D-MO) declared this week:

“These atrocities are being funded by billions of our own American tax dollars while communities like mine in St. Louis are hurting and are in need of life-affirming investment here at home.”

The expanding Jewish Voice for Peace, whose views represent a larger polling of American Jews than does AIPAC, joined over 70 U.S. advocacy groups in support of a Congressional resolution opposing your latest $735 million weapons shipment to Israel. You know federal law prohibits U.S. weapons delivered to a foreign country from being used for offensive purposes – a law continually and openly violated by Israel with impunity.

Having such precision instruments of war, and because it has Gaza under the strictest, most intrusive surveillance of any encircled, besieged territory in history, Israeli destruction of critical civilian infrastructure – electricity, water, sewage, and medical facilities – can be considered deliberate. The Israeli military knows about every street, home, apartment building, business, and government site, including who moves inside this tiny enclave. They have embedded spies, informants, a 24/7 electronic watch, and even updated Palestinian DNA samples. Indeed, Israeli government spokespersons boast about giving warnings to the occupants of some of the targets, such as those in the 14-story building housing AP, Al Jazeera, many residential apartments, and doctors’ offices, before turning it into rubble. They know exactly what they are striking – warnings or no warnings. So far, half of the fatalities are children, women, and those sick from the raging, Covid-19 pandemic, who have little or no access to vaccines.

You have two dozen Democratic Senators demanding a ceasefire and you still will not come out strongly for a transition toward a vigorous peace process leading to your stated two-state solution. You have none of President Eisenhower’s steadfastness who in 1956 declared a firm stop to the aggressive Israeli, French, and British bombing of Suez in Egypt.

You know full well what started this latest round of hostilities. Read this excerpt from the New York Times:

“…it was the outgrowth of years of blockades and restrictions in Gaza, decades of occupation in the West Bank, and decades more of discrimination against Arabs within the state of Israel, said Avraham Burg, a former speaker of the Israeli Parliament and former chairman of the World Zionist Organization. ‘All the enriched uranium was already in place,’ he said. ‘But you needed a trigger. And the trigger was the Aqsa Mosque.’”

Mr. Burg was referring to the Israeli police invasion of the 8th century Aqsa Mosque – Islam’s third holiest site – during Ramadan, tear gassing and wounding over 300 praying faithful with stun grenades and rubber bullets. Together with Israeli street gangs in East Jerusalem and the intensifying displacement of Palestinian families there, the provocations proved to be the tipping point for panicked Palestinians.

You know this and much more from your confidential briefings. Still, you are hesitating. You are intimately aware of why Prime Minister Netanyahu timed and choreographed these bloody, brutal assaults. It is to position himself more successfully in forming a governing coalition of extremists to avoid a fifth election and ward off an ongoing prosecution for corruption by Israeli law enforcers. He provoked, for his political ambitions, the terrifying of the country he leads.

I am attaching an open letter I sent to President Obama on December 19, 2016, asking him to adopt Jimmy Carter’s urgent plea for you to take “the vital step – to grant American diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine, as 137 countries have already done, and help it achieve full United Nations membership.” As you know, Mr. Carter negotiated the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. He referenced President Obama’s support of the long-standing United Nations Resolution 242, which called for a “complete freeze on settlement expansion on Palestinian territory that is illegal under international law.” In 2011, President Obama also made clear that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines” as two states.

In dire contrast, your Administration has been signaling a diplomatic withdrawal from this conflict to focus on China and East Asia. You’d be well advised to generate some residual fortitude, and empathy, and uphold the legal responsibility to reverse your total support for whatever Israel has done since you began your Senate career in 1973.

Enclosed: An Open Letter to President Obama: Decision Time For Israeli-Palestinian Peace – December 19, 2016.

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate and the author of “The Seventeen Solutions: Bold Ideas for Our American Future” (2012). His new book is, “Wrecking America: How Trump’s Lies and Lawbreaking Betray All” (2020, co-authored with Mark Green).

Featured image: The Israeli and American flags displayed on the walls of the Old City in Jerusalem (Photo: Yonatan Sindel)

All Global Research articles 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 destruction of a rare bookstore selling English books isn’t the worst tragedy to hit Gaza this week. But for its people, it is a manifestation of a multidimensional war that disconnects besieged Palestinians from the world.

Hanya Aljamal couldn’t help crying while leafing through the pages of one of the last books she picked up from Samir Mansour bookstore in Gaza on her last visit a month ago.

Among all the books that helped her to endure the Palestinian strip’s 14-year siege, Man’s Search for Meaning stood out as a spiritual guide on how to survive harrowing circumstances. In the case of the book’s author, Viktor Frankl, it was the mass murder of six million Jews, the Holocaust, that took away his parents and his wife to concentration camps.

“Nothing in the world makes this okay, no possible reason can,” Aljamal, a 24-year-old translator and writer, thought to herself while reading the book.

Almost a month later, Samir Mansour Library, the only bookstore where she could pick up an English copy of Frankl’s book in Gaza, was to be destroyed by an Israeli air strike. As her friends sent pictures of the books buried in the rubble on May 18, Aljamal wept again – this time fearing that her sadness was invalid as people were dying all over the densely populated territory.

This wasn’t the first tragedy in Gaza in the last ten days, of course. The loud rockets that keep Aljamal up at night have wiped out entire families, including 67 children.

Recalling the book, Aljamal sobs in a voice note sent to TRT World, “I think about what’s happening to us right now and I think this is not okay too.”

Every destruction leaves another mark. “You never get used to it,” she says.

On top of the killings, the destruction of the Samir Mansour bookstore, which housed the largest English collection of literature in Gaza, makes her think that it’s a manifestation of Israel’s multidimensional war that takes aim at making Gaza even more isolated.

Samir Mansour, the owner of the publishing house and bookstore that owns the largest collection of English literature in besieged Gaza looks at a book in front of the remains of his store that has been destroyed by Israeli air strikes. May 20. 2021, Gaza, Palestine.

Samir Mansour, the owner of the publishing house and bookstore that owns the largest collection of English literature in besieged Gaza looks at a book in front of the remains of his store that has been destroyed by Israeli air strikes. May 20. 2021, Gaza, Palestine. (Mohammed Samir Mansour)

“Even under blockade, it made us feel as a part of the world,” she says.

Whenever she walked past, she used to check the books on display in the big glass window and sometimes find herself absorbed by the enclave’s only English selection for hours. Mansour’s bookstore, also a publishing house, says they were unable to save any books from the large collection.

“Israel aims to kill. If not, it aims to make life unbearable,” Aljamal says.

Samir Mansour’s bookshop was not the only one affected. Others, including the Iqraa library, were either completely or partially destroyed in Al Thalatiny Street, lovingly known as al Maktabat street, which literally translates to “the bookstores street.”

Even though Gaza’s siege has been a reality for over a decade, this is one of the times when people in Gaza feel what that siege truly means. The enclave’s borders are impassable, and no watercraft is allowed to set sail to help transport passengers to other places.

What can leave Gaza now are only the rockets bound for Israel. Before the firing of the first rocket, Hamas, the group that controls the enclave, warned Tel Aviv to withdraw its security forces attacking worshippers in Jerusalem’s Al Aqsa mosque.

Instead, Israeli police stormed the mosque, firing stun grenades at worshippers on a night that Muslims consider the holiest of the year. Tel Aviv’s brutal offensive has killed over 227 Palestinians so far and Hamas air strikes have killed 12 people in Israel.

What can enter Gaza is also limited. The international aid that has been restricted under the blockade since 2007 is now largely blocked from reaching Gaza.

An English copy of British crime novelist Agatha Christie’s book

An English copy of British crime novelist Agatha Christie’s book “Curtain” buried in the rubble of the Samir Mansour publishing house and bookstore that housed the largest collection of English literature, May 20. 2021, Gaza, Palestine. (Mohammed Samir Mansour)

But up until the bombardment, the 21-year-old bookshop was able to provide a fair amount of things Gazans craved due to the siege: getting Palestinian voices out from Gaza. and bringing the world’s literature into Gaza.

“Samir Mansour bookstore and other libraries gave us a reason to live,” one writer from Gaza, Hedaya Shamun, says. Under a blockade, getting published is a massive challenge; holding physical copies of prints is a luxury.

“I was over the moon when my novel was printed in Egypt. But I couldn’t get a copy of the book except after 6 months – it was transferred from a friend to a friend until they could give me some amount of copies,” Shamun recounts her previous experience with publishing.

“I couldn’t prepare for the signature party because I didn’t have any copies of the books,” she says. The writer was exhausted from the cost of printing her successive book, Daughter of the Sea.

But the bookshop’s owner, Mansour, then made things easier for Shamun. He printed Shamun’s novel and placed them in his bookstore, too.

“He gave me a good amount of copies so I was able to launch my own signature parties [this time],” she says.

Khatwa company, which shared the Kahil building with the Samir Mansour bookshop and publishing house, spray-painted its number on the rubble after an Israeli air strike turned the building in Gaza into a heap of rubble on May 18, 2021.

Khatwa company, which shared the Kahil building with the Samir Mansour bookshop and publishing house, spray-painted its number on the rubble after an Israeli air strike turned the building in Gaza into a heap of rubble on May 18, 2021. (Mohammed Samir Mansour)

Efforts to rebuild amid a destruction

The shop was home to literary community meetings until the day the Israeli army informed Mansour that the Kahil building, where the bookstore is located, would be bombed alongside some educational centres belonging to the Islamic University.

“The occupation’s destruction of the library will negatively affect the community of readers and writers, which publishes books in its various fields and gives it the opportunity to participate in international exhibitions,” says Mohammed Samir, Mansour’s son.

Mohammed, who used to work with his father before the bombing, is extremely sad that Mansour’s childhood dream has gone to waste. The loss of their extensive collection is of huge regret to everyone.

The shop had already survived a major assault by Israel on Gaza in 2014; other buildings had not been so lucky. While a lot of the enclave was reduced to rubble, some places that came off worse had been rebuilt – but this was all before this latest operation which Palestinians confirm as the worst in its ferocity.

Aljamal, the Gazan translator, witnessed how long it took Gaza to get back on its feet amid a dire lack of funds.

“There is ten times more destruction this time,” she says in despair. “I keep thinking that if we survive, Gaza won’t.”

But the Mansour family is determined to keep rebuilding the bookstore and keep the literary spirit alive, even though the destruction is ongoing around them. They have the support of hundreds of booklovers inside and outside of Gaza.

A crowdfunding page set up by two human rights lawyers has already collected over $8,000. The funds will eventually allow Mansour to rent a new plot and rebuild a library and bookshop. “All of the heart, creativity, and talent poured into this magical place is gone,” the page called for action.

“Please help us raise funds to rebuild Gaza’s community bookstore, bombed to pieces,” Clive Stafford Smith, one of the crowdfunders said.

“Who really believes you can bomb the world to peace?”

*

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

Featured image is from TRT World

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Faith in the Magic of Capitalism Fueled India’s COVID Crisis

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

While it is understood that viruses mutate, causing variants, French Virologist and Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier contends that “it is the vaccination that is creating the variants.”

The 2008 Nobel Laureate made the explosive comments as part of a larger interview with Pierre Barnérias of Hold-Up Media earlier this month. The clip was exclusively translated for RAIR Foundation USA, and is quite damning for the agenda-driven left-wing establishment.

As reported at RAIR in April of last year, Prof. Montagnier presented a powerful case that the coronavirus was created in a lab. His comments at the time offended the left-wing establishment so much that they aggressively attempted to discredit his statement. Now, the media is backpedaling on the origin of the coronavirus after prominent scientists called for further scrutiny.

Vaccines are Creating the Variants

Prof. Montagnier referred to the vaccine program for the coronavirus as an “unacceptable mistake”. Mass vaccinations are a “scientific error as well as a medical error,” he said. “It is an unacceptable mistake. The history books will show that, because it is the vaccination that is creating the variants,” Prof. Luc Montagnier continued.

The prominent virologist explained that “there are antibodies, created by the vaccine,” forcing the virus to “find another solution” or die. This is where the variants are created. It is the variants that “are a production and result from the vaccination.”

Antibody-Dependent Enhancement

Prof. Montagnier said that epidemiologists know but are “silent” about the phenomenon, known as “Antibody-Dependent Enhancement” (ADE). In the articles that mention ADE, the concerns expressed by Prof. Montagnier are dismissed. “Scientists say that ADE is pretty much a non-issue with COVID-19 vaccines,” an article at Medpage Today reported in March.

Prof. Montagnier explained that the trend is happening in “each country” where “the curve of vaccination is followed by the curve of deaths.”

The Nobel Laureate’s point is emphasized by information revealed in an open letter from a long list of medical doctors to the European Medicines Agency. The letter stated in part that “there have been numerous media reports from around the world of care homes being struck by COVID-19 within days of vaccination of residents.”

Earlier this month, RAIR reported on a statement by French Virologist Christine Rouzioux:

“…the rise in new cases is occurring in vaccinated patients in nursing homes in ‘Montpellier, in the Sarte, in Rheims, in the Moselle…”

Prof. Luc Montagnier continued to say that he is doing his own experiments with those who become infected with the coronavirus after getting the vaccine. “I will show you that they are creating the variants that are resistant to the vaccine,” he said.

Watch the clip (transcribed below):

Many thanks to HeHa and Miss Piggy for the translation!

(Questions are bolded)

If we look at the curve from the WHO, since the vaccinations started in January, the curve showing new infections (contamination) has exploded, along with deaths.

Notably among young people.

—Yes. With thromboses, etc.

How do you view the mass vaccination program? Mass vaccination compared to treatments that work and aren’t expensive.

—It’s an enormous mistake, isn’t it? A scientific error as well as a medical error. It is an unacceptable mistake. The history books will show that, because it is the vaccination that is creating the variants.

—For the China virus, there are antibodies, created by the vaccine. What does the virus do? Does it die or find another solution?

—The new variants are a production and result from the vaccination. You see it in each country, it’s the same: the curve of vaccination is followed by the curve of deaths.

—I’m following this closely and I am doing experiments at the Institute with patients who became sick with Corona after being vaccinated. I will show you that they are creating the variants that are resistant to the vaccine.

Should we be vaccinating during a pandemic?

—It’s unthinkable.

They’re silent… many people know this, epidemiologists know it.

—It is the antibodies produced by the virus that enable an infection to become stronger.

—It’s what we call Antibody Dependent Enhancement, which means antibodies favor a certain infection. The antibody attaches to the virus, from that moment it has the receptors, the antibodies, we have them in the macrophage etc.

—It pokes the virus and not accidentally, but because of the fact that they’re linked to the antibodies.

—It is clear that the new variants are created by antibody-mediated selection due to the vaccination. OK?

*

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.

Renee Nal is an investigative journalist and documentary film producer.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video