All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

A Libyan official has said they will investigate to find those responsible for the dead in the recent flooding at Derna, Libya which may be more than 11,000. They don’t need an investigation to know the responsible party is US President Barack Obama, who devised and engineered a US-NATO attack on Libya in 2011 for regime change.

“The U.N. Security Council never aimed to topple the Libyan regime,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in April 2011. “All those who are currently using the U.N. resolution for that aim are violating the U.N. mandate.”

In 2016, a report found that the intervention of UK, French, and US armed forces into Libya in March 2011 was “not informed by accurate intelligence.”

The report said that the US-NATO attack had “drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change,” the result of which was “political and economic collapse, inter-militia and intertribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of [weapons] across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa.”

The attack was successful in removing the Libyan leader Muamar Gadhafi, destroying the civil infrastructure, preventing any recovery of the country from 13 years of armed conflict, and is responsible for the lack of government in Libya today, which failed to warn people about the weather danger from the storm Daniel, which unleashed enough rainfall to collapse two dams.

The US spent billions of dollars on destroying Libya, but they have not spent on reconstruction of the infrastructure they destroyed, such as dams, water supplies, hospitals, schools and electricity power stations.  International donations are arriving in Libya now, but the US will not be sending anything other than what they provide to USAID, which is distributed through the United Nations humanitarian relief. Tents and bandages will not help Libya to recover from what Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron did in 2011.

The Mayor of Derna, Abdel Moneim al-Ghaithi, said the dams had been unmaintained due to the armed conflict raging since 2011.

The US never justified its destruction of Libya by developing, or even imposing, a form of democracy there. Instead, the country is divided into east and west, with two separate governments, neither of which have been voted into office by the people.

In the west, there is the Tripoli based Government of National Unity, a misnomer. The officials are followers of the Muslim Brotherhood, a global terrorist group advocating the same political platform as Al Qaeda and ISIS. They are supported by the US and recognized by the UN. Their allies are Qatar and Turkey, fellow Muslim Brotherhood regimes.

In the east, there is the Tobruk based Libyan National Army, headed by Field Marshal Khalifa Hafter, which is responsible for Derna and the region. Most of the country’s oil resources are in the east.

Libya and Syria were both US-NATO attacks for regime change begun under the Obama administration, and both followed the 2003 US-NATO attack on Iraq, also for regime change, which was a success in removing Saddam Hussein, and destroying the country. Iraq still lacks water, electricity, hospitals, medicines, and schools even after 20 years. Iraq has never recovered, or been rebuilt, and we can foresee that neither Syria nor Libya will ever recover or be rebuilt. 

Like Iraq, Libya saw a huge number of civilian deaths. In over twenty thousand massive “shock and awe” aerial bombardments, major cities and civilian infrastructure were routinely targeted.

Syria suffered from a 7.8 magnitude earthquake on February 6. The US never sent even one loaf of bread, or one bottle of water to Latakia, Syria, one of the hardest hit areas, because it remains under the Damascus central government. Instead, they sent their humanitarian donations to Idlib, which is a province living under the occupation of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. The HTS leader, Mohammed al-Julani, likes to wear a suit and tie these days as he tries to rebrand himself for the US public. He granted an interview to the US media PBS where he looked like a US supported statesman, even though he was formerly an officer under ISIS leader Baghdadi.

But, there is something different between Syria and Libya: in the case of Syria, the regime change the US was willing to use terrorists to fight for, failed. The central government in Damascus never fell, and the Syrian Arab Army never split. The Syrian infrastructure is destroyed and people lack electricity because of the US military occupying the main oil and gas field in Syria, thus cutting off the domestic energy resources.

In 2014, Seymour M. Hersh published “The Red Line and the Rat Line”. He exposed the Obama administration’s use of stolen Libyan weapons covertly sent to the terrorists in Syria to topple the Syrian government.

On the day Tripoli fell, the New York Times’ headline read, “The Scramble for Access to Libya’s Oil Wealth Begins”. Libya’s vast oil reserves, the largest in Africa and next door to Europe, were free for the taking. Now, the east and west based governments in Libya have used oil resources as a weapon in their war against each other.

Millions have left Syria as economic migrants looking for an income abroad. Europe took in millions, but many Syrians also found their way to Libya as workers. Now, reports are filtering back to families in Syria concerning dead or missing Syrian workers in Derna. Syria and Libya have shared suffering from the pattern of US-NATO attacks on foreign countries for the purpose of regime change, and now they share in the deaths and aftermath of the Derna flood.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MD

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“When do we scare the pants off them again!” — Matt Hancock, UK Health Minister

Fear feeds on stupidity. Stupidity borne of willful personal ignorance resulting from individual apathy that too easily accepts media propaganda verbatim.

The educated, those whose efforts towards self-education and the creation of a “developed opinion” based on provable peer-reviewed facts are now under worldwide attack.

By stupidity.

As challenged in a recent article, this embrace of stupidity is “The War For Your Mind.”

Stupidity must be defined, challenged and vanquished. Examples of this growing worldwide societal malady abound. One recent case study in California serves as an example of this mounting threat, so easily metastasized into “fear.”

In the lead-up to the weekend of Aug 19-20, 2023, America’s growing embrace of said stupidity – only rivalled in the English language world by the British – was on full media display.

Suddenly, that week here in Southern California we were told that gloom and doom had arrived once again: This time in the form of “Hurricane Hilary,” slowly moving north from 500 miles south of the tip of the Baja peninsula and then 1500 miles from San Diego.

The full breadth of the media propaganda machine immediately went into similar COVID-19/Ukraine war mode, full throttle. It’s mandate: Fear.

Similarly, the resultant media distortions were particularly aimed at those who had decided beforehand that their ignorance as to Hurricanes was best filled in only by their singular media choice, rather than an effort towards a healthy dose of personal education on the subject at hand.

I live in SoCal, have for years when not in Wales. Regarding the newest proffered Armageddon titled, “Hilary,” and the media’s guarantees of pending destruction all the way up the coast to Oregon, I could not have cared less.

I had taken the time to do some research.

However, in a world boiling in stupidity SoCal residents dutifully filled sandbags, while authoritarian Governor Gavin Newsom closed state parks and schools and his minions blocked roads and imposed a state of emergency.

Dutifully, the public was loving it: Joining in wholesale while staying up to the wee hours of the morning Sunday nervously waiting for the first onslaught of wind and rain to begin. They could not sleep due to fear.

For the few possessing a working knowledge of a compass, a thermometer, a map and distance there was nothing to be concerned about at all.

But that’s not what the media said.

This left the vast majority in utter panic. They had been told to panic. To fear “Hilary” – even Democrats.

So, panic they did.

However, in the real world of fact-based reality, hurricanes move very slowly and when moving north on the West coast (in this equator) they do so into colder water where they always peter out and die a rapid death.

Hilary was no exception.

Following my own mantra regarding education of the unknown, to be sure I did a bit of checking using the best, yet utterly ignored, source of weather news, the US National Weather Service. Not surprisingly, all of MSM was not offering this regularly updated information to the public.

Flooding in Ciudad Constitución, Baja California Sur, caused by Hurricane Hilary on August 18 (Licensed under CC BY 3.0)

Updated every two hours, those putting a personal effort into weather “science” would have discovered instead that Hilary was now stuck just off Guerro Negro (500 miles south of San Diego) because it had moved into colder water. Thanks to USNWS with each update, wind and rain predictions for SoCal were dropping faster than Kevin McCarthy’s interest in a Biden impeachment.

By D-Day, Sunday morning August 20, the predictions of a huge tidal surge, up to 10 inches of rain and 70 mph winds smashing and rinsing SoCal into the sea were still being promised by MSM on all networks by the minute.

Meantime at USNWS, those predictions had been downgraded dramatically. Hour by hour.

When, as true science had predicted, only three inches of rain and 40mph wind gusts hit SoCal, and with the storm rapidly dying out far to the south off Mexico it was not surprising to those few who were actually educated on the subject.

In SoCal, we often get 50-90 mph winds due to the Santa Ana winds coming from the desert several times a year. This past winter blessedly brought the most rain in decades and 1-3 inches of rain was routine.

So, why the fear?

Frustrated at this huge disappointment and in need of bolstering the fear factor, MSM fabricated a whole new definition for dying tropical storms in order to excuse their blunder, “Post-Tropical Cyclone.” Cyclones, however, being peculiar to the southern half of the earth.

Hurricane? Not so much.

So went this round of manufactured fear, slowly petering out in the Pacific like a Blue State mask mandate.

The US media immediately returned to terrorizing a former president while fully covering up for the impeachable crimes of the current one.

This short parable of fear thus inspired to action is of small consequence. However, the irrational stupidity that pawned it is not.

But before we look in part at the fear machine of Corona past applied to the regeneration of the fear of alleged Corona present might it not be a good idea to attempt to quantify stupidity and open that definition to discussion or expansion?

Defining Modern Stupidity

In an open attempt at quantifying stupidity that so easily responds to fear perhaps reducing it to an algebraic equation may be a good place to start the discussion: S= (I x A) m

Stupidity = Ignorance multiplied by Apathy exponentially multiplied by daily Media Propaganda.

In a previous article on ignorance penned just prior to my departure to Ukraine in March 2022, “The Ignorance of War,” I examined this subset of stupidity and exposed it as a lack of personal desire for education so extreme that most people were more willing to cast aside friendships rather than accept any additional information beyond their singular MSM offerings.

Regarding apathy, in a 2017 article, “What Rats Say About Americans,” I presented clinical studies that used rats to posit that apathy was related to junk food, resultant obesity and therefore personal disinterest in self-preservation.

Anyone observing the plethora of “Puddings in Heals” of “Bloated Blancmanges” waddling about US and UK streets would attest to this prerequisite.

Of course, after the lies and the cover-up of the 2020 election, the Biden family influence peddling operation (reported in a series by the author) and the worldwide Covid-19 scam, three years hence one might think that MSM and alternative media credibility would now be challenged by the awakened now asking some very important questions.

Au Contraire.

“When do we release the new variant? When do we scare the pants off them with the new strain.”

Featured image: Matt Hancock (Source: Flickr)

These, and the quotes below are the exact words of former Covid times UK Health Minister Matt Hancock and his conspirators in the UK ministries as leaked by Isabel Oakeshott. Hired to ghostwrite a book highlighting Hancock’s successes, instead, Oakeshott was aghast at what she read when provided access to over 100,000 WhatsApp texts between Hancock and his other disciples of fear.

Hancock, it must be noted, had zero prior experience in health care.

His texts are not conjecture. They are fact.

Thanks to Isabel Oakeshott, who violated her non-disclosure agreement due to conscience, we now know that schools were closed, children masked, families and friends separated, visitors kept out of care homes and quarantine periods prolonged, less because of “science” and more for political convenience.  

Released by the UK newspaper “The Telegraph” in a multi-part series titled “Project Fear” Hancock’s own words prove that, when not shagging anyone other than his wife (sans social distancing) he was far busier shagging the UK public. His weapon of choice: Fear, ignorance, public apathy, the media, and public stupidity.

Oh, and fear they did.

When the Alpha (previously “Kent”) variant started spreading in December 2020, many were already scared. Hancock on Dec 13 told his adviser that “we [can] frighten the pants of [sic] everyone with the new strain.” And questioned, “When do we deploy the new variant”.

Five days later, Boris Johnson cancelled Christmas.

By text, the UK Cabinet Secretary told Hancock early in the third lockdown that “the fear/guilt factor” was “crucial” in keeping restrictions in place, if not going further. Cabinet Secretary Simon Case also told Hancock that the Nightingale hospitals would be full within days. The Telegraph’s data editor Michael Simmons pointed out that Nightingale admissions peaked at 57 a day (capacity 4,000 beds). But the corporations providing these tents and services reaped millions. Thanks to fear.

Chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance told Hancock that it wasn’t a bad idea for him to “suck up [a] miserable interpretation” of case numbers in front of the public, and then “over-deliver.”

The two ministers were joined at the hip over lockdowns right throughout the pandemic. Texts show Hancock asking MP Michael Gove before a cabinet meeting “What are we trying to achieve?” Gove replied: “Letting people express concerns in a therapeutic environment before you and I decided the policy”.

To this: “You are glorious”, replied Hancock in approval.

A week later Gove texted Hancock on the first anniversary of the lockdown, telling him “U r a hero. Never forget it.” Ignoring his wife and his concubine, Hancock added later that night on May 26, 2021 “I ❤️you.”

There are many more texts in the same vein.

In a commentary by “The Spectator” author Fraser Nelson writes:

“The tone of these messages matters. The idea of giving “marching orders” to police, to arrest members of the public for going about normal life, did not seem to make them at all uncomfortable. We see Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, laughing at how they will lock up people who come off flights and saying he wishes he could see the faces of those about to be incarcerated. We see them talking about fear as a legitimate government tool, to be dialed up or down – and discussing how useful it is to the government that people should be scared.” [emph.added] 

With lead roles played in the drama by Hancock, Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty, and Welsh minister Mark Drakeford, (all unelected bureaucrats) and their soul-selling allegiance to Big Pharma, the UK public stupidly rolled up their sleeves for an untested and rushed to market vaccine that as of late has killed and/or maimed millions and has been outlawed in many educated countries as a result.

The UK and US governments’ own statistics clearly reflect this horror as do the actuarial studies by insurance companies paying death benefit claims in amounts never before recorded.

Although America has not benefited from internal leaks by its own co-conspirators across the pond, with the many lies of COVID-19 having been thoroughly debunked by solid investigative journalists and a brace of Nobel Prize winners, here in the “Land of the Exceptional” the educated might fill in the names of Fauci, Collins, Birx, Wallensky, Redfield etc. al.

The best link to the UK use of fear rather than science and the above-mentioned US rouges gallery is best found in the book by world-renowned US epidemiologist Scott Atlas. In, “A Plague Upon Our House: My Fight at the Trump White House to Stop COVID from Destroying America,” Atlas, who was brought in far too late in the saga by Trump- and who quit in frustration- provides behind the scene details to the educated that show the and false nature of the “Settled Science” provided to the media by these American liars.

Proving Atlas’ contentions were the results in Florida which, without a lockdown or masks did better than the most draconian state in the nation, California. Atlas highlights Gov. Ron DeSantis contacting him multiple times as he continued to educate himself as governor before applying new laws. Laws that worked without overreach.

De Santis was not predisposed to stupidity. Instead, he was a champion of personal education. The statistics don’t lie. He and Atlas were absolutely correct.

So…three years later, how is it that today mass murderer Anthony Fauci can walk the slick marble floors of Georgetown University and not fracture a hip or break a wrist or two after slipping violently on the collective spittle cast at his feet in retribution and disgust?

Stupidity.

Corona Rising?

With the Biden regime now threatening new lockdowns, mask mandates and a new untested vaccine perhaps, today, the uninformed would do well to consider- at least- this month’s revelations regarding the reality of Corona-past applied to the villains present.

It has been reported that Fauci, Collins and others reaped more than $300 million from the royalties on some of the drugs they mandated on the world.

One drug, forced on the ignorant was Remdesivir. This became possible only after Fauci and the media rebranded the 2015 Nobel Prize-winning – and proven very effective against Covid-19 – drug Ivermectin as “horse paste.” Despite being used by humans for decades this lie alone allowed for an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the untested MRNA vaccines.

The same media lie was true in branding Hydroxychloroquine as “Ineffective,” since it had been used regularly as an anti-malarial taken weekly across Africa for decades as well. Strangely, the African nations had some of the lowest rates of Covid mortality recorded.

Thanks to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s extraordinarily well-researched book, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” the educated know that Remdesivir- the mandated by Fauci substitute for both these two very effective drugs- is a barbaric and utterly ineffective drug that directly contributed to the high mortality rate of Covid patients in the Western nations. And, that Fauci knew this after forcing it on patients from AIDS to SARS previously.

The FDA’s role in this outrage, as a bona fide part of this conspiracy, came under fire this week. Judge Don Willett, writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a unanimous opinion joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Edith Brown Clement and Jennifer Walker Elrod, regarding the FDA making Ivermectin illegal for use by doctors at the most important time, stated:

“FDA can inform, but it has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers ‘stop’ taking medicine.”  

Previously, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown ruled against the doctors in 2022, finding that doctors had not proven an exception to sovereign immunity and that there was every indication the FDA acted outside of the authority conferred by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

The appellate court further lambasted Brown’s absurd opinion, adding;

“Nothing in the [FDA] Act’s plain text authorizes FDA to issue medical advice or recommendations.”

Dr. Robert Apter, one of the plaintiffs, called the ruling “a big win for doctors and for patients!”

Indeed. But where was that ruling three years ago?

It should be added to this ruling regarding US administrative overreach that the CDC, unlike the FDA is not a federal agency but a private corporation maintained by a staggering amount of public US funding.

This week came, unsurprisingly, the revelations that The “UK intelligence community” worked with a government unit that monitored and removed dissent on social media.

Also, this week was the news that COVID-19 cases among fully vaccinated seniors soared in 2021. This, according to newly disclosed data that was acquired by U.S. health agencies but not presented to the public.

Following the advent of many lawsuits filed by U.S. military officers who lost all their retirement benefits after being dishonourably discharged for being educated and refusing the vaccines, Humetrix Cloud Services was contracted by the U.S. military to analyze vaccine data. In part, the company performed a fresh analysis as authorities considered in 2021 whether COVID-19 vaccine boosters were necessary amid studies finding waning vaccine effectiveness.

Humetrix researchers found that the proportion of total COVID-19 cases among seniors was increasingly comprised of vaccinated people.

Results from Australia show a substantially similar cause and effect. Death.

These reports are made worse by the CDC’s recent admissions that the vaccine; 1) does not prevent communicability between the vaccinated and, 2) also does not prevent the recipient from contracting COVID-19.

Really?

Pre-COVID-19, by definition, any vaccine was required to do both.

Release the New… Corona?

We have suddenly been told that a new Corona variant again threatens our very existence in the form of the new EG.5 or Eris variant. Even though flu-like viruses regularly mutate and that this change actually fortifies the human immune system through “natural immunity,” this weekend came the news that in Los Angeles Fauci disciple Barbara Ferrer called for and is forewarning of another Mask mandate.

Said Ferrer, apparently longing for the good old days of being all-powerful in the face of stupidity:

“I’m not going to say, there’s never going to be a time when we might need to all put our masks back on.”

Ferrer is, of course, unelected.

*

I fly often. I did so before, during and after Covid-19 made plane travel even more unenjoyable. From what I have seen already media fear is working.

Walking my dogs before my departure I saw- I swear– a person driving by, windows rolled shut and fully masked up.

On the two legs of the flight, I witnessed the increased number of people who had also dutifully masked up.

After four years of authoritarian results and a year of factual science and the courts destroying the “fear”narrative, this should be shocking. Obviously, these people were willfully ignorant as to the real news and true science but were too apathetic to look for that news, and had decided to allow their minds to remain beholden to the siren’s song of the collective media.

Hence, fear had gripped them. Again.

However, by definition and the one cursory algebraic equation as referenced above these poor souls were actually infected with a far more terminal disease, a disease rapidly enveloping, nay, destroying the lives of the educated here on Earth. That terminal disease:

Stupidity!

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Brett Redmayne-Titley has spent the last twelve years documenting the “Sorrows of Empire.” He has authored over 200 articles all of which have been published and often republished and translated by news agencies worldwide. An archive of his published work can be found at watchingromeburn.uk.  He can be contacted at live-on-scene ((@)) gmx.com.

The author’s new book, “THERE!” is just out. 18 chapters of the best in old-style on-scene reporting. Please support my work by purchasing a copy from Amazon Books.  All donations are gratefully appreciated. Stand-up! It…Is…Time!

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Slightly over a week ago, all major collective West news outlets carried the story of a rocket attack on a crowded market in Konstantinovka, a town which is under Kiev regime control. It was announced that as a result of the blast 17 people were killed, including a child, and 32 were injured. Within minutes of the occurrence the accusation was hurled that the missiles that hit the market were Russian and that the Russian side in the conflict was therefore responsible for the mayhem.

The attack, which occurred as Secretary Blinken was visiting Kiev, was denounced immediately and from various quarters. Zelensky claimed that it was an example of “Russian evil” that “must be defeated as soon as possible.” Along the same lines, “Denise Brown, the UN’s humanitarian envoy for Ukraine, denounced the attack as ‘despicable,’ and the European Union condemned it as ‘heinous and barbaric.’”

At the time when these statements were being made, which was literally within minutes of the occurrence to which they referred, there was no evidence whatsoever, firm or circumstantial, to corroborate them. Quite the contrary, the circumstantial evidence pointed in the opposite direction. Amateur videos from the scene posted on social networks portrayed shoppers who heard the sound of incoming projectiles turning their heads to look in the direction away from where the missileswould have come from, if they had been Russian. That strongly suggested that the missiles were launched from territory under the control of the Ukrainian military.

So far, almost ten days after the widely publicised event, no forensic investigation with verifiable data is reported to have been performed, under anybody’s auspices, Ukrainian or international. As a result, each and every statement made about the blast by Ukrainian or Western officials is unsupported by evidence and is purely conjectural.

Even more suspicious than that is the fact that initially lively and unabashedly accusatory media coverage of the Konstantinovka market blast, which vividly recalled a similar false flag market incident contrived in Sarajevo during the Bosnian war, suddenly went silent. That happened literally from one day to the next. The day of the blast, September 6, and before any reliable information could have been available, a Wikipedia article accusing Russia for the incident in Konstantinovka was hastily posted. (Ludicrously, in deference to Kiev regime’s linguistic edicts Wikipedia refers to the town as “Kostiantynivka,” to stress its non-Russian character.) By Googling “Konstantinovka attack” one gets a long series of videos and articles all contending unanimously, as in the Reuters report, that “Russian attack kills 17 in east Ukraine as Blinken visits Kyiv, officials say”.

But every single one of these reports is dated September 6 or 7, 2023, and from then on, as if by magic, all references to the crime cease. Hard as one may look, after September 7 there is no mention of the event that just the day before provoked such enormous indignation and, in the opinion of the highest officials, merited the use of dramatic expressions such as “evil,” “heinous,” and “barbaric.”

Why was there no follow-up?

Why was such an initially promising false flag operation, which cost the lives of more than a few innocent individuals, suddenly dropped?

One can only speculate about the reasons. As we explained in our original piece on this subject, historically there is a very strong correlation between false flag operations and specific political events that are meant to be exploited by the falsely directed emotions that the event was provoked to generate. In this case, that is obviously Secretary Blinken’s visit, into which the Kiev regime had invested enormous hopes in terms of additional material assistance and support. However, based on everything we now know about the results of that visit, the regime received very disappointing news about its Western sponsors’ readiness to maintain their support at the expected level.

In light of these realities, the regime may have concluded that further fanfare about the Konstantinovka market blasts would be unproductive. Western sponsors, on the other hand, may have decided to cut off media coverage which would have enhanced the victim image of their proxies that they are slowly preparing to ditch, generating moral pressure to continue to back them with the same intensity. Without the logistical support of the Western propaganda machine no other outcome was conceivable and the Konstantinovka story could only die a natural death. That is exactly what happened.

We must remember, however, that besides the propaganda story there are sixteen or seventeen, by various counts, innocent people who are also dead.

Their violent death was cynically arranged by the Kiev Nazi regime to try to improve its political position as its fortunes deteriorate on every front. The victims of this outrage in Konstantinovka, as well as the victims of similar false flags in Bucha and Kramatorsk, deserve justice. The perpetrators must be punished.

As we have repeatedly argued, it is necessary to   consider without delay the issue of putting in place serious and effective legal mechanisms to identify and punish perpetrators of crimes against humanity such as we have just witnessed in Konstantinovka. The criminals may be beyond the reach of justice at the present moment, but that is bound to change soon. When that happens, justice must be ready to spring into action.

The Konstantinovka incident demonstrates once again the need for Russia to declare universal jurisdiction over all crimes against humanity committed in the context of the conflict which began in 2014, reserving the right to prosecute related crimes which may have been committed anywhere on the territory of rump Ukraine, the Russian Federation, or in any other location.

Since Konstantinovka happens to be in the Ukrainian-occupied portion of Donetsk Region, a territory which has been legally incorporated into the Russian Federation, no special jurisdiction is required to prosecute parties suspected to be guilty of this market massacre, on the basis of individual, command, or joint criminal enterprise modes of criminal liability. But elsewhere the situation may not be as simple. Bucha is an example that comes to mind immediately of a similar crime where additional jurisdictional powers would be required to prosecute.

Let us hope that the Konstantinovka false flag murder operation will be a clarion call to action to close off every remaining avenue of impunity that could be used to shield the perpetrators of such disgusting acts.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

Featured image is from Fresh News Asia

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Once again, it seems clear that Ukraine is just one part of America’s ambitious war plans. According to Western media, American experts are “taking notes” of the reality of combat with electronic warfare in Ukraine. The objective is to make the Ukrainian battlefield a “testing ground” for electronic warfare techniques that can serve US interests in other conflicts – such as a possible confrontation with China in the future.

The story was published in an article on the “Defense News” outlet. Josh Koslov, leader of the US Air Force’s 350th Spectrum Warfare Wing, reported that the US is impressed with the widespread use of means of electronic warfare during hostilities in Ukraine, with both sides showing “agility” and efficiency in carrying out operations. Koslov believes that these skills will be needed by the US in the future, if the country faces a major opponent on the battlefield.

“The agility being displayed by both parties, in the way that they’re executing operations in the spectrum, is awesome (…) Both sides are doing the cat-and-mouse game very, very well (…) In the future, for us, if we do confront a peer, being agile and being rapid is the key to success in the spectrum (…) Not having control of spectrum leads to fatalities, leads to getting killed. And we’ve seen that time and time again in that conflict”, he said.

Although both sides are using this type of technology, the Russians are evidently proving to be more efficient, as can be seen in the results of the special operation. For this reason, Western analysts are evaluating Russia’s performance on the battlefield and believe that Moscow’s electronic skills are one of the main reasons for the Ukrainian failure.

In fact, electronic warfare (also called “spectrum warfare“) is one of the most important topics in contemporary military sciences, even though it is often ignored by some specialists. In current military campaigns, it is essential that the sides involved in hostilities have control over electromagnetic technologies, both for defensive and offensive use.

Given the high use of advanced technology in equipment such as computers, cellphones, radars and radios and guidance systems, a large electromagnetic environment is formed around the battlefields. The side that is most skilled in investigating enemy data through this electromagnetic environment has a huge advantage, both in direct military operations and in intelligence gathering.

Many analysts believe that Russian victories are largely due to Moscow’s high capacity to use the electromagnetic environment to its advantage. Using electronic warfare techniques, the Russian armed forces have been efficient in neutralizing most enemy attacks (mainly diverting Ukrainian drones), in addition to achieving high precision in their strikes. Russian electronic warfare technologies are also vital in destroying the communication lines of Ukrainian troops, having proven to be much more efficient than the entire technical apparatus provided by the West to Kiev.

As head of the electronic warfare wing of the American armed forces, Koslov knows his country’s weaknesses and seeks on the Ukrainian battlefield the knowledge necessary to solve US’ problems. There is a “need” on the part of the US to accelerate the modernization of its spectrum warfare capabilities because the country currently sees the possibility of engaging in direct conflicts in the near future. In this sense, the Defense News’ article reads: “U.S. [spectrum] arsenal atrophied in the years following the Cold War, but officials are reprioritizing in preparation for a fight with Russia in Europe or China in the Indo-Pacific.”

This statement helps answer a series of questions about why the US continues to foment the conflict in Ukraine, even with Kiev on the brink of collapse. In addition to trying to “wear down” the Russians and generate destabilization in the Russian strategic environment, Washington is also observing the enemy, trying to gather data on its advanced war technologies to help overcome its own military weaknesses. In other words, the Pentagon is turning Ukraine into a “testing ground” for improving its own defense forces.

The only reason the US is doing this is because American officials see the start of a new conflict as imminent.

Currently, few experts believe that NATO is willing to engage in an open war against Moscow, given the catastrophic effects this would entail. However, a conflict with China seems to be more in line with American plans, as for American strategists Beijing appears to be a “weaker” target, with a greater possibility of US victory in a direct confrontation. For this reason, the US has recently promoted intense militarization of the Asia-Pacific region, increasing local tensions.

So, in practice, the Americans are noticing on the Ukrainian battlefield what they need to improve in their own forces in order to achieve victory in a war they plan to start soon – being electronic warfare one of the main points to be improved. In other words, there is no real concern about Kiev, there is only the strategic use of the conflict to serve American interests while hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are killed on the frontlines.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image: UK instructors train Ukrainian marines as part of Operation Orbital in Odessa, Ukraine in January 2019. Image: Ukrainian Naval Forces

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

The broad lament from commentators about global economic growth is that China is not pulling its weight. Not enough is being done to stir the sinews and warm the blood, at least when it comes to the GDP counters. And many such pundits hail from countries, most prominently the United States, which have done everything they can to clip the wings of the Middle Kingdom even as they demand greater strides in its growth. “China’s 40-year boom is over,” declared the Wall Street Journal last month in a tone of some satisfaction. “The economic model that took the country from poverty to great-power status seems broken, and everywhere are signs of distress.”

Under the Trump administration, the war against the Chinese economy began in earnest. Somewhere in the order of $360 billion in tariffs were slapped on Chinese products, a central pillar in the Make America Great Again platform. This was despite a 2019 study by economists Xavier Jaravel and Erick Sager claiming that increased trade with China raised the purchasing power of the average US household by an impressive $1,500 between 2000 and 2007. “These gains from lower prices were broadly shared across all income groups in the economy, although they were proportionally larger for low-income groups (with gains about 15 percent larger than average.”

The downside to such throbbing growth in purchasing power has been the “China Shock” phenomenon: the loss of jobs occasioned by increased trade with a country able to command an enormous low-wage workforce. This was grist to Trump’s populist mill, a spur to protectionism that has gone gonzo under the Biden administration.

Going even further than Trump, Biden has threatened Chinese companies with delisting from the US stock exchange in 2024 in accordance with the Holding Foreign Companies Act of 2020. The value at stake there: $2.4 trillion.

On August 9, President Joe Biden signed an executive order restricting outbound investment to China, Hong Kong, and Macau. Broadly speaking, China is a country “of concern” either exploiting or having the ability to exploit “certain United States outbound investments, including certain intangible benefits that often accompany United States investments and that help companies succeed, such as enhanced standing and prominence, managerial assistance, investment and talent networks, market access, and enhanced access to additional financing.”

The order proceeds to make nonsense of a core premise of US investing, forever cradled by the artificial assumption that open markets are an unhindered reality. Openness only ever makes sense if it favours the trader and investor. As the order continues to state, “certain United States investments may accelerate and increase the success of the development of sensitive technologies and products in countries that develop them to counter United States and allied capabilities.”

To that end, the advancement of such countries “in sensitive technologies and products critical for the military, intelligence, surveillance, or cyber-enabled capabilities” to their betterment with the aid of US investments constituted “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security of the United States,” a state of affairs that deserved the hyperbolic tag of “a national emergency”.

A discomforting feature of such executive actions is that they constitute provocations that feed the incentive for further conflict. On the one hand, it encourages China to pursue a more autarkic form of development, focusing on self-reliance as it weans itself off the nutriment from US investments. But such policies can also encourage a state of desperation with few options.

On the latter point, history offers a bleak example. In the lead-up to the attack by Imperial Japan on Pearl Harbour in December 1941, the Roosevelt administration added a generous dose of acid to the diplomatic mix to encourage conflict. To stifle Japan’s military efforts in Asia, individuals such as Secretary of War Henry Stimson, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau and Interior Secretary Harold Ickes resoundingly endorsed a policy of economic strangulation. Secretary of State Cordell Hull, however, felt that such matters as oil sales to Japan could still continue on a case-by-case basis, a policy that came to be stomped upon by zealots in the State and Treasury departments.

A colourful streak of US historiography on this point, one dismissed by high priest orthodoxy as ambitiously deluded, even clownish, suggests that the opportunistic President Roosevelt wished to provoke Japan into an attack on the US that would also commit Washington to war with Germany. One need not endorse that view to see the dangers of the economic strangulation policy, one marked by such standouts as Washington’s termination of the 1911 commercial treaty; the signing of the Export Control Act of July, 1940 which authorised the president to license or prohibit the export of essential defence materials; and the July 26, 1941 order freezing Japanese assets in the United States. On August 1, 1941, a ban on oil exports to “aggressor countries” including Japan led to a resource crisis that eventually emboldened the militarists to strike.

The State Department entry on the subject by the Office of the Historian, hardly a den of radical rabble rousers, had to concede that, facing “serious shortages as a result of the embargo, unable to retreat, and convinced that US officials opposed further negotiations, Japan’s leaders came to the conclusion they had to act swiftly.”

Next time China’s current economic lethargy is discussed like that of a nutrition deficient patient, the relentless assault and cornering, notably in the sectors of investment now regarded as crucial for continuing US hegemony, should be considered.  It also augurs poorly for global security: economic strangulation can sweeten the instinct for war.  In the case of Xi’s China, it will most likely result in a greater, if haughtier resilience.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected] 

Featured image is from The Unz Review

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The US military occupation of the oil fields in north east Syria came under attack recently, and there were some who said it could foreshadow a US military withdrawal. However, the violence ceased, and the US supported Kurdish separatists are continuing to hide under the Pentagon’s wings.

The Obama created US-NATO attack on Syria for regime change began in 2011, but has failed. However, it was successful in destroying the country and preventing its recovery from an armed conflict utilizing terrorists supported by the US and its allies.

Neighboring Lebanon has been decimated, not by war, but by their political elite which have always been supported by the US, and the US has allowed a political stalemate to drag on without a President at the helm in Beirut. 

Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Scott Bennett, former US Army Psychological Operations Officer, and State Department Counterterrorism Analyst. His insight provides a rare glimpse into what is happening behind the scenes, and where the region is headed.

*

Steven Sahiounie (SS): Violence began in Deir ez-Zor, in eastern Syria on August 27 when the US sponsored SDF arrested Ahmed al-Khubail, the commander of the Deir ez-Zor Military Council in Hasakah, along with his brother and four other commanders. Since then 50 SDF soldiers have been killed and civilians killed when the SDF shelled residential areas. 

Is this the beginning of a US occupation withdrawal from Syria? 

Scott Bennett (SB): In order to predict what future U.S. military-intelligence agency (CIA) operations are going to be conducted, it is essential to first review and analyze what is occurring in the U.S. orbit and international community. Simply stated, the world is in a state of slow divorce from the U.S. and its petrodollar, and is pulling out of the orbit of influence the U.S. has created since 1946, and accelerated into hyper drive after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990. What the U.S. most likely will do is begin igniting small fires around the world to create tension, chaos, and smoke in order to try and destabilize and increasingly multi-polar world.  As psychotic as this may sound, it is the new ideology of the Zionist-fascist-neocolonial American Empire—which is now collapsing like Rome. So I would predict one of these “fires”, which is a figurative way of describing guerilla wars, color revolutions, coups, internal strife, “false flag” bombings (like was done in Lebanon), and destruction of international infrastructure (such as was done against the Nordstream pipelines and the Crimean bridge), is going to be in Syria. So I do not see the U.S. pulling out of Syria until the Democrats are overthrown, perhaps violently, by the American people in the coming year. Democrats and certain Republicans have become slaves to the bribes given them by the military industrial complex, and have no respect for other countries, international law, or the Constitution—they are instead consumed by lust and a desire for endless power in which they will try to continue to coerce, extort, and control other nations, peoples, and the natural resources in their land. 

SS: President Trump ordered a Syrian withdrawal, but the Pentagon didn’t agree. Instead, the US military occupation force has controlled and confiscated the major energy resources in Syria, that of the Omar oil field, and the Conoco gas field. Electricity in Syria is produced from domestic oil and gas resources, but now Syrian civilians get just a few hours of electricity per day because the oil wells are confiscated. 

In your opinion, is the US justified in stealing Syrian resources from the benefit of its citizens? 

SB: One of the greatest errors and tragic demonstrations of either ignorance or weakness by President Trump was his allowing the U.S. to attack Syria for fake chemical weapons attacks—that never occurred—which were orchestrated by the British and their slaves the “White Helmets”, and their Israeli Mossad and CIA handlers. Trump was sorely ignorant of the international situation and the cultures of the world, and consequently allowed war hawk fanatics like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley, and General James Mattis to do whatever they wanted in the arena of Syria. Voices such as former Senator Dick Black (R-Virginia) and Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) attempted to share the truth about the situation in Syria, and how President Assad was not the monster the Zionists were attempting to re-define him as, but sadly it fell on deaf ears.  Additionally, the U.S. invasion of Syria and establishing military personnel and posts to steal the oil from Syria, is a crime against humanity which demands prosecution by the international community and a resolution demanding the expulsion of the U.S. from Syria immediately. If this is not done by the United Nations, then this organization is truly another slave to the bribes and coercion of the United States and Britain and Israel. 

SS: The US military partner in Syria is the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) since 2015. Since then, the SDF have ethnical cleansed the northeast of non-Kurds. Syrian Arabs and Christians had been the majority prior to 2015. 

In your view, should the US government be promoting ethnic-cleansing in northeast Syria? 

SB: Nothing the U.S. has ever done in Syria is anything other than a war crime. The bombing of Syria for fake chemical attacks that were theatrical “false flag” events orchestrated to lie and attempt to manipulate the world and specifically the U.S. and President Trump, is one of the greatest deceptions President Trump allowed to take place—and as a result, the U.S. actions can only be described as “crimes against humanity” and acts of genocide against the Syrian people.  

SS: Lebanon has been without a President for almost one year. The US Embassy in Lebanon exerts a great deal of influence on Lebanon politically and financially. 

In your opinion, with the US agree upon and promote any presidential candidate, and who might that be? 

SB: The U.S. and Israel no doubt conducted a miniature nuclear bombing against Lebanon a few years ago, and this act was designed to cast Lebanon into chaos. Additionally, the U.S. Zionists in Washington are always overthrowing political leaders in other nations in order to dominate the nation and steal its resources for worthless American dollars, and continue the “great SHELL GAME” which America has sadly become pathologically proficient at. (see: www.shellgamewhistleblower.com) As we have also seen, the U.S. and its Zionist handlers have “selected” the American Presidents using voting machine technology that is easily manipulated into providing false numbers of votes in order to change the reality of elections. Most recently this was done when the American voting machines Dominion, Premier, and E.S. and S. were manipulated by a financial deal that involved Union Bank of Switzerland, where Robert Wolf, former Chairman of the Americas for UBS, entered into an agreement with the Chinese Communist Party, and Staple Street Capitol to manipulated these machines. This plot began in 2009, and resulted in the false election of Joe Biden and removal of Donald Trump. Of course we also now see the American government quickly degrading into a police state and fascist ideologues that are delusional with a “woke” agenda of rampant homosexuality, transgender LGBT, climate change religion, and other quasi-religious obsessions.  

SS: The US was surprised when Saudi Arabia and Iran repaired their relationship under a Chinese brokered deal. President Biden had asked Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to pump more oil to lower US domestic gasoline prices, but MBS refused.  

In your view, is Saudi Arabia moving beyond US directives, and acting independently? And, how does Washington react to that new policy? 

SB: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China accomplished in a week what the U.S. secretly was opposed to for 50 years. Essentially China created the conditions and opportunity and motivation for Iran and Saudi Arabia to begin to move towards a peaceful co-existence. Additionally, the Chinese agenda of the “Belt and Road” initiative is another factor that promises more economic prosperity and socio-political stability, and this is echoed by the BRICS organization, and other newly evolving associations and agreements. The key factor behind the new developmental and collaborative work in the world is the fact that the United States is not participating. Instead, the U.S. seems to be becoming dangerously fanatical, unstable, and even mentally deranged in its political leadership. This would suggest that unless there is an uprising and revolution in America that completely changes its diplomatic and military agenda and redefines America with humility as a member of the family of nations and not an arrogant parent or slave master, then the violence, war, and conflict that the U.S. has been exporting since its great false flag self-inflicted attack on September 11, 2001, sadly might continue.  But then again, God says, “Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, I shall repay.”  And God is faithful to avenge the wrongs done to innocent blood. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MD

---

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

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

New York State Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James, have formally filed an appeal this past Wednesday in an attempt to overrule the Cattaraugus County Supreme Court ruling striking down proposed concentration camps. The state of New York is pursuing the authority to force quarantine human beings against their will and the ability to locate them in quarantine camps AKA concentration camps. The five judge court of appeals may take a couple months to render a verdict.

This is a similar tactic that was used in Nazi Germany during World War II when Jews and Gypsies and other “undesirables” were said to carry diseases and were forced into concentration camps. Apparently, those that refuse to inject C19 biological weapons injections will be targeted.  

On July 15 2022, JDSupra Reported:

“In a decision issued on July 8, 2022, Judge Ploetz of the Cattaraugus County Supreme Court held that Rule 2.13 violates state law, and is therefore null, void and unenforceable.….

In discussing due process protections, Judge Ploetz stated that “while Rule 2.13 provides that isolation and quarantine must be done ‘consistent with due process of law’ and the detainee has the right to seek judicial review and the right to counsel, these protections are after-the-fact, and would force a detainee to exercise these rights at a time when he or she is already detained, possibly isolated from home or family, and in a situation where it may be difficult to obtain legal counsel in a timely manner.” Judge Ploetz also stated that Rule 2.13 merely gave “lip service” to constitutional due process because the law could conceivably grant the commissioner unfettered discretion to force anyone into isolation or quarantine, despite a lack of evidence…”

Governor Hochul held a press conference Wednesday afternoon fear mongering and encouraging people to inject Covid-19 booster biological weapon injections. In addition to wanting to force quarantine people she is also encouraging them to inject a biological weapon. This is not acceptable.

There is evidence that the Covid 19 injections and mRNA injections meet the criteria as biological and technological weapons. This Grand Jury petition lays out a broad case supporting this position.

Some might debate whether Covid-19 was a psyop or a synthetic pathogen. I am leaning toward both. Regarding C19 injections and mRNA injections the evidence is clear that these are biological weapons. Instead of investigating these crimes against humanity, the Governor and Attorney General of New York are actively participating in these crimes against humanity by continuing to participate in biological warfare against New Yorkers and pushing for the pseudo authority to force humans into quarantine camps.

Pfizer data as of June 18, 2022 revealed nearly 5 million harmful clinical outcomes. Some of these serious adverse effects include:

696,605 nervous system disorders, 539,299 musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (92,942 pain in extremities), and 317,811 gastrointestinal disorders, 224,633 skin, hair and nail disorders, 190,720 respiratory and chest disorders, 178,353 female and male reproductive system disorders (erectile dysfunction, infertility, heavy menstrual bleeding), 167,382 victims developed bacterial, viral, or parasitic infections (24,910 herpetic infections), 126,993 cardiac disorders, 100,970 blood and lymphatic system disorders, 77,148 psychiatric disorders, 73,542 vascular disorders, 61,518 eye disorders, 47,038 ear and labyrinth disorders (15,833 tinnitus), 31,895 immune system disorders, 13,647 kidney and urinary disorders, 3,711 cancers and benign cysts, 4,056 pregnancy complications 1,859 spontaneous abortion complications, 1,143 genetic disorders, and 3,814 deaths.

The death totals are difficult to estimate because of the suppression of data. In the past the VAERS data has been reported to underrepresent data by a multiplier as high as 100 which would put fatalities in the millions. In the recent past there have been reports of suppression of VAERS data entries, and the CDC no longer reports data to the VAERS system.

It should also be noted that an individual getting cancer a year or two later will not be reported as a ‘vaccine’ injury or death. A person having or dying of a heart attack a year or two later will not be reported as a ‘vaccine’ injury or death. A person having or dying of a stroke will not be reported as a ‘vaccine’ injury or death. And the list goes on…

The level of sociopathy required to suggest that anyone continues to inject themselves with these biological weapons is unfathomable. At this point the pharmaceutical industry is almost sadistically mocking the population as the new Pfizer XBB.1.5 Monovalent ‘vaccine’ was tested in 20 mice. There was no control. Apparently, there were also no humans involved in the study. There is absolutely no way to know how humans will respond to this new biological weapon.

Governor DeSantis and Surgeon General Ladapo have advised against those under 65 getting biological weapon booster shots. Although, they have yet to admit the C19 injections are biological weapons, which is problematic. To suggest that those over 65 years old can go ahead and get an injection that was tested on 20 mice and no humans, is questionable. Hopefully that will be clarified.

We may not be allowed to know the ingredients of the biological weapon injections; however, we apparently do know that they contain nanotechnology. The extraordinary evidence of self assembling nanotechnology in the blood of the ‘vaccinated’ and now the ‘unvaccinated’ from shedding, should sound alarms of the true diabolical nature of the crimes committed. This isn’t about rushed or incomplete trials, it is deliberate. It is about depopulation and transhumanism.   

In the first Nuremberg trials after World War II, NAZI doctors, nurses, attorneys, businessmen, government officials, and even members of the press were prosecuted, and some were executed. In the Nuremberg 2.0 trials there must be accountability for the worse crime in human history. Billions of people have been targeted with biological warfare. It is time to ban the distribution of biological weapons. It is time to start issuing indictments. Both the Governor of New York, and the Attorney General of New York, should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. If found guilty they should get sentenced appropriately.

This link is of Attorney Bobbie Ann Cox making oral arguments against Hochul’s Concentration Camps.     

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Chinese COVID-19 Quarantine Camp: An inspiration and dream for New York Governor Kathy Hochul. (Source: Courageous Discourse)

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published by Global Research on July 30, 2023

***

Ever since the Biden Administration, alias the Globalists, took power in Washington, China was bombarded with threats and sanctions; foremost with attempts of “chips-strangulation”, meaning, being blocked for the chip production, and by supply chain disruptions of electronics, notably semiconductors.

The entire car industry could be paralyzed. While that would be great for the Global Warming / Climate Change freaks, not only the car industry, but also to a large extent the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) would suffer, as it also depends on such fast-evolving chips. A good thing as well!

The drawback with a production / supply interruption would be a slack in new chip-technology development which is subject to constant scientific research and trials.

You may call it the Chips War – West versus China. It had begun already some three years ago. At some point in 2022 rumors emerged that Mr. Biden was to blackmail Americans working in the Chinese chip-industry by taking their US citizenship away, if they would not quit their jobs immediately.

Of course, this is complete nonsense and would be totally unconstitutional. Not even King Biden could get away with acting on such a menace.

So far nothing happened, other than the US prohibiting Taiwan, the main producer of such valuable chips, to supply them to mainland China, and asking Taipei’s main chip manufacturer, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) to build with urgency a chip manufacturing facility in Arizona that should become operational in 2024.

TSMC chairman Mark Liu said, however, that the plant faced a shortage of workers with the “specialized expertise required for equipment installation in a semiconductor-grade facility.” Therefore, the TSMC chip plant in Arizona will have to postpone production until 2025, instead of 2024, as expected by the Biden Administration.

So much for Washington’s attempt to outpace Beijing in the global chip race by economically closely collaborating with Taiwan. Not to forget, Taiwan is seen by Beijing as an integral part of mainland China. See this for more details, see this.

What is the semi-conductor industry? For what are semiconductors used?

It is the industry in which companies conceive, design, and manufacture an electronic device, called semiconductors, a fundamental component of modern electronics, such as cell phones, televisions, and computers. As the world is becoming increasingly all-digitized, it will ever-more depend on computers and electronics to enhance the capabilities of devices ranging from doorbells to motor vehicles – and, not to forget the MIC. The semiconductor field is dominated by a handful of countries, though the field is growing and expanding rapidly.

According to the White House, the US currently produces roughly 10% of global semiconductor manufacturing, and China about 15%. However, the picture is much more complex.

Understanding the semiconductor manufacturing and user markets, let’s look at the world’s largest semiconductor producers.

Taiwan’s diplomatic status is part of mainland China. Only 12 countries recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation. That is 6% of the tiniest of UN members. For all practical purposes, despite the US (which does not recognize Taiwan either as an autonomous and sovereign country), Taiwan must be considered as part of Mainland China. Thus, de facto, Taiwan’s production is part of China’s production. More on this later.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) singlehandedly manufactures roughly 50% of the world’s semiconductors. Unlike semiconductor manufacturers such as Samsung or Intel, which produce semiconductors for use in their own products, TSMC manufactures semiconductors for many other companies, including Apple, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), California, and more. This is known as the foundry model of business.

Now – who is winning and who is losing the “chip war”?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

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

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.  

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un unexpectedly extended his visit to Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin and his North Korean counterpart met on September 13 to reportedly discuss bilateral cooperation and after the five-hour meeting at the Vostochny Cosmodrom, it has become clear the ongoing discussions include military and technical cooperation. For one thing, Putin  has vowed to help the East Asian nation develop satellites, and accepted Kim’s invitation to visit the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) – Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is also to visit the country in October, according to spokesman Dmitry Peskov. Kim in turn vowed to bring about “a new era of 100-year friendship” between the two states.

The DPRK has been struggling with heavy sanctions for a long time and suffered the impact of pandemic related border closures – which have been relaxed recently.

US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller threatened by saying the US would “not hesitate to take action” if Pyongyang provided weapons to Moscow. In response, the Kremlin said that Russian and North Korean interests mattered, “not warnings from Washington.” There are however “certain limitations” to Russian-North Korean military cooperation (to which Russia complies), as Putin himself acknowledged, probably referring to UN Security Council resolutions which Moscow voted for in the past. Even so, there are many points of cooperation to be explored – the challenge will be to navigate the aforementioned limitations.

On September 14, the national security advisers of Japan, South Korea, and the US jointly issued a warning pertaining to Russian-North Korean cooperation, threatening that there will be “clear consequences” if United Nations Security Council resolutions are breached. The White House said US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan had talked with his South Korean and Japanese counterparts to discuss the Putin-Kim meeting.

Last year, amid the US-Japan-South Korea summit, I wrote on how frictions were escalating in the Korean peninsula, but also involved Russian-Japanese tensions. At the same time, Washington’s new stance on Taiwan added fuel to the fire. There is in fact another angle to Russian-North Korea discussions about strengthening military ties: they are about diversifying partners as much as they are also a response to US-Japanese-South Korean Pacific developments and AUKUS.

Much is talked about the Quad (the “Asian NATO”) described by Lavrov as a US-led policy aimed against China. From a Russian perspective, however, this initiative – together with the overall American “Indo-Pacific” policy, also affects balance in a web of state relationships in Asia. Thus, for Russia, engaging with North Korea is arguably also about balancing US-Japanese-South Korean influence in Asia.

For example, over two years ago, I wrote on how Biden’s approach to the DPRK had been a setback – this was so largely due to the fact that Washington saw any interaction with the country as “unacceptable” nuclear negotiations – and such an approach was hardly an incentive to bring Pyongyang back to the table.

Nothing much has changed in that regard. As I wrote, in 2021, talks with the US were (and still are) very unlikely to deliver much, the nuclear issue being a true impasse – this being so, a natural path for North Korea would be to enhance its bilateral relations with Moscow, who, after all, has always been critical of the sanctions against Pyongyang: even though Russia did join the 2013 sanctions against the Asian country (in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2087), talks about setting up an advanced “development zone” in the Russian Far East and North Korea started in 2015 – this being a sphere of cooperation free of the scope of sanctions back then. Li Haidong, a International Relations of China Foreign Affairs University professor wrote, also in 2021, that the Russia-China-North Korea trilateral relationship had the potential to advance stability in the region.

Although there has been a common will towards stability and peace in the Korean peninsula, Biden’s administration has largely been a hindrance. In any case, engaging with North Korea and “controlling” its existing nuclear arsenal is a much more realistic goal than full denuclearization. The hard reality is that Pyongyang has achieved nuclear power and will not let it go; thus, engaging with the DPRK is the only reasonable approach. In a way, this is also what Moscow is doing right now.

To sum it up, the Russian strategy for the Korean peninsula should not be seen merely in the context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and arms deals but should also be seen from a larger geopolitical perspective.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Inquisitive minds are not buying the official story that the fires in Maui were a natural and unexpected event – and certainly not one that is the product of some mythical concept like “climate change” or “global warming.”

Like the recent fires in California and Australia, the Hawaii fires are “unlike anything we’ve ever seen before,” to quote Greg Reese of Infowars, who put together the following informational video about what many believe really happened in West Maui.

“They are being called ‘forest fires’ and ‘wildfires,’ but they are clearly something very different,” Reese explains – watch below:

“These fires are burning homes into a white powdery ash footprint while often leaving the surrounding green trees and shrubs practically untouched. In extreme cases, forest fires can reach temperatures of up to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, and the melting point of aluminum is 1220 degrees Fahrenheit, so it is possible for an extreme forest fire to melt aluminum.”

“But there are cars with puddles of melted aluminum that were clearly not in the wildfire area, and melted glass, which has a melting point of around 2500 degrees F. These are unexplained anomalies.”

The Color Blue, Which Was Unharmed in the Maui Fires, Has a Frequency of 6.66

As was also the case with the 2018 California fires, objects such as cars and homes burned to a crisp and basically collapsed into their own footprint, leaving behind nothing but white ash.

“We’ve seen these same anomalies in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001 – cars completely burned out with no explanation,” Reese points out.

Disturbingly, the Maui fires were highly selective in what they burned. Poor and middle-class folks had their entire homes and livelihoods reduced to ash while the lavish estates of rich people like Oprah and Jeff Bezos remained unscathed.

“In Maui, these unnatural fires spared the homes of the rich while burning the native homes of the working class,” Reese explains. “With precision, these fires destroyed the most envied, high-valued areas of Maui.”

It is fast becoming common knowledge that the government has at its disposal directed energy weapons, or DEW technology, that utilizes lasers and light to target certain objects and places for destruction while leaving the surrounding area alone.

“For decades, directed energy weapons have been classified, but they have been on the public record for several years now,” Reese says. “Directed energy weapons, known as DEWs, have the ability to burn homes with this sort of precision – but in order to be this precise, the area would have to be mapped out.”

It turns out that, back in January, many local residents of Hawaii observed strange green laser lights in the sky. Reese says these lasers are proof-positive evidence that the government was mapping the terrain in advance using a geospatial array.

After the fires destroyed Lahaina, many blue-colored objects were observed to have not burned even though everything else around them was burned.

“We have seen that among the ashy ruins, there are blue-colored objects that have somehow survived the devastation: blue cars, blue umbrellas, a blue boat, blue planters,” Reese says.

“Videos online are going viral that show how lasers can easily burn through certain-colored objects, but objects that are colored blue remain unharmed.”

DEWs include not only lasers but also millimeter waves and microwaves, both of which are used in the naked body scanners at American airports.

“They are all based on light frequencies, and different wavelengths of light affect colors differently,” Reese says. “For example, in laser tattoo removal, different wavelengths are used for removing different colors. And this is because color is a quality of light. Each color has its own frequency.”

“Interestingly enough, the frequency of the color blue is 6.66.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on Global Research on December 22, 2022

Introductory Note 

The doctrine of peaceful coexistence was first formulated by Moscow in the wake of the 1918-1920 war against Soviet Russia.

It was presented to the Genoa Conference in April 1922.

The “unspoken” 1918-20 war against Russia (barely acknowledged by historians) was launched two months after the November 7, 1917 Revolution on January 12 1918.

It was an outright “NATO style” invasion consisting of  the deployment of more than 200,000 troops of which 11,000 were from the US, 59,000 from the UK. 15,000 from France.  Japan which was an Ally of Britain and America during World War I  dispatched 70,000 troops. 

The article below entitled Genoa Revisted: Russia and Coexistence was written by my late father Evgeny Chossudovsky in April 1972 (in commemoration of the Genoa 1922 Conference). It was published in Foreign Affairs.

At the height of the Cold War, the article was the object of a “constructive debate” in the corridors of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).  According to the NYT:

Flash Forward to 2023

The world is at a dangerous crossroads. In the post Cold War Era, East-West Dialogue has been scrapped.

Is “Peaceful Coexistence” and Diplomacy between Russia and the U.S. an Option? 

Constructive Debate and Dialogue is crucial.

Can East-West Dialogue be Restored as a Means to Avoiding a Third World War? 

There is a sense of urgency. Military escalation could potentially lead humanity into nuclear war.

The first priority is to restore dialogue and diplomatic channels. 

We call upon the U.S., the member states of the European Union and the Russian Federation to jointly endorse a policy of “Peaceful Coexistence”, with a view to reaching meaningful peace negotiations in regards to the war in Ukraine. 

***

My father’s family left Russia in 1921 for Berlin. He was seven years old. In 1934, he departed for Scotland, where he started his studies in economics at the University of Edinburgh, the alma mater of Adam Smith.

In 1947 he joined the United Nations secretariat in Geneva. In 1972 at the time of writing of this article he was a senior official at the United Nations Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

The following article on “Peaceful Coexistence” is part of the legacy of my late father, Dr. Evgeny Chossudovsky

It is my sincere hope and commitment that “Peaceful Coexistence” will ultimately prevail with a view to avoiding a Third World War.  

 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, December 22, 2022, July 29, 2023

***

 

Genoa Revisited: Russia and Coexistence

by Evgeny Chossudovsky

Foreign  Affairs, April 1972

Half a century ago, on April 10, 1922, Luigi Facta, Prime Minister of Italy, solemnly opened the International Economic Conference at Genoa. Lloyd George, the prime mover of the Conference, was among the first speakers. He called it “the greatest gathering of European nations which has ever assembled,” aimed at seeking in common “the best methods of restoring the shattered prosperity of this continent.”

Though this rather remote event has by now been forgotten by many, the evocation of it is justified. For a study of Soviet attitudes at that Conference throws light on the origins and evolution of the notion of the peaceful coexistence between countries having different economic and social systems, a major concept of Soviet foreign policy which no serious student of international affairs can nowadays afford to ignore.

Therefore, to look at Genoa afresh from this particular angle may perhaps add to the understanding of Soviet foreign policy and economic diplomacy, including their more recent manifestations.[1]

The author was also anxious to assess the relevance of this first multilateral encounter between Soviet Russia and the Western world to current efforts, a half-century after Genoa, aimed at promoting cooperation across the dividing line. To undertake the task in these pages is not unfitting: the first issue of Foreign Affairs, published only a few months after the Conference, carried a then anonymous article by “K” entitled “Russian After Genoa and The Hague,” written in masterly fashion by the review’s first Editor, Professor Archibald Cary Coolidge. I am grateful for having the privilege, on the eve of the golden jubilee of Foreign Affairs, to revert to this early theme, even if from a different standpoint and at a more comfortable historic distance.[2] 

The Genoa Conference was convened as a result of a set of resolutions passed by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers meeting at Cannes in January 1922. The principal among these was Mr. Lloyd George’s Resolution. 

In the form in which the draft was adopted on January 6, it provided for the summoning of an Economic and Financial Conference “as an urgent and essential step towards the economic reconstruction of Central and Eastern Europe.” All European states, including the former Central Powers, were asked to attend.

Special decisions were adopted to invite Russia and the United States. Russia replied in the affirmative. Indeed, the young Soviet Republic accepted this call with eagerness and alacrity for reasons which will become apparent as we proceed. On the other hand, we are told that Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes informed the Italian Ambassador in Washington on March 8 that, since the Conference appeared to be mainly political rather than economic in character, the United States government would not be represented.[3] However, the U.S. Ambassador in Rome, R. W. Child, was appointed observer.

American oil and other business interests were represented by F. A. Vanderlip. In the opinion of Soviet historians, the U.S. refusal to take part was motivated mainly by hostility toward Soviet Russia and fear that Genoa might strengthen that country’s international position. The United States at the time was adhering firmly to the policy of economic blockade and nonrecognition of the new Bolshevik regime. On May 7, 1922, Ambassador Child wrote to the State Department that he considered his main function as observer at Genoa would be to “keep in closest possible touch with delegations so as to prevent Soviet Russia from entering any agreements by which our rights would be impaired.” 

Participants at the 1922 Genoa Conference. (Licensed under the Public Domain)

Russia was to have been represented by Lenin himself in his capacity as Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars. Lenin had closely supervised all the preparations and undoubtedly intended to go to Genoa. He stated publicly that he expected to discuss personally with Lloyd George the need for equitable trade relations between Russia and the capitalist countries.

But in naming Lenin as its chief delegate, the Soviet government entered a proviso that “should circumstances exclude the possibility of Comrade Lenin himself attending the Conference,” Georgy Vassilievich Chicherin, People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, the deputy head of the delegation, would be vested with all requisite powers.

In the end, public concern over Lenin’s personal safety, pressing affairs of state requiring his attention, and the deterioration of his health, made it undesirable for him to leave Moscow. However, he retained the chairmanship of the Russian delegation and directed its activity through almost daily contact. (The New York Times entitled its leader on the opening of the Conference “Lenin in Genoa!”) Chicherin serving as acting head of the delegation was aided by such outstanding Soviet diplomats and statesmen as Krassin, Litvinov, Yoffe, Vorovsky and Rudzutak, who together formed the “Bureau” of the delegation.

All eyes turned with curiosity on the People’s Commissar when he took the floor, after star performers such as Lloyd George and Barthou had made their inaugural speeches. In keeping with the diplomatic etiquette of those days, he wore tails. Issue of the Russian nobility and for some years archivist in the Tsarist Foreign Ministry, Chicherin as a young man had broken with his past and espoused the cause of revolution, ultimately siding with Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Un homme genial and a diplomat of consummate professional skill, he combined wide knowledge of world affairs, sophisticated erudition and artistic sensitivity with burning faith in communism and a single-minded dedication to the defense of the interests of the Soviet state. Having spoken in excellent French for some twenty minutes, he proceeded, to the surprise and spontaneous applause of the meeting, to interpret his speech into English.

Though Chicherin had hardly looked at his notes during delivery, his statement had been most carefully prepared. Lenin himself had approved the text, had weighed each word, formulation and nuance. Chicherin’s declaration was the first made by a Soviet representative at a major international conference on the agenda of which the “Russian question” loomed large and to which the Soviet Republic had been invited. It was truly a historic moment.

Chicherin told the Conference that “whilst themselves preserving the point of view of Communist principles, the Russian delegation recognizes that in the actual period of history which permits of the parallel existence of the ancient social order and of the new order now being born, economic collaboration between the States representing the two systems of property is imperatively necessary for the general economic reconstruction.” He added that

“the Russian delegation has come here … in order to engage in practical relations with Governments and commercial and industrial circles of all countries on the basis of reciprocity, equality of rights and full recognition. The problem of world-wide economic reconstruction is, under present conditions, so immense and colossal that it can only be solved if all countries, both European and non-European, have the sincere desire to coordinate their efforts… The economic reconstruction of Russia appears as an indispensable condition of world-wide economic reconstruction.” (emphasis added)

A number of concrete offers (combined with proposals for a general limitation of armaments) accompanied this enunciation of policy, such as the readiness of the Russian government “to open its frontier consciously and voluntarily” for the creation of international traffic routes; to release for cultivation millions of acres of the most fertile land in the world; and to grant forest and mining concessions, particularly in Siberia.

Chicherin urged that collaboration should be established between the industry of the West on the one hand and the agriculture and industry of Siberia on the other, so as to enlarge the raw materials, grain and fuel base of European industry. He declared, moreover, his government’s willingness to adopt as a point of departure the old agreements with the Powers which regulated international relations, subject to some necessary modifications. Chicherin also suggested that the world economic crises could be combated by the redistribution of the existing gold reserves among all the countries in the same proportions as before the war, by means of long-term loans. Such a redistribution “should be combined with a rational redistribution of the products of industry and commercial activity, and with a distribution of fuel (naphtha, coal, etc.) according to a settled plan.” 

Such was, in essence, the first considered presentation by Soviet Russia of what came to be termed the policy of peaceful coexistence between the capitalist and socialist systems, linked with a specific program of practical action, made in an intergovernmental forum. But the genesis of the concept goes back much further.

As long ago as 1915, Lenin, in the midst of the First World War, which to him was above all a clash of rival imperialist powers, in a celebrated article entitled “On the Slogan for a United States of Europe,” had foreseen the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country. In so doing he proceeded from an “absolute law” of the uneven economic and political development of capitalism, especially during its imperialist phase.

Lenin came to the related conclusion that the “imperialist chain” might first snap at its weakest link, e.g. in a relatively backward country like Tsarist Russia with a small but concentrated and rapidly expanding capitalist sector, a desperately poor peasantry and a compact and politically conscious working class pitted against a decaying ruling elite. Though the break in the chain would set in motion a process of revolution, that might take time, possibly decades to unfold, depending on the specific conditions obtaining in each country. The socialist state, meanwhile, would have to exist in a capitalist environment, to “cohabit” with it for a more or less prolonged period, peacefully or nonpeacefully. In another article dealing with the “Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution,” published in the autumn of 1916, Lenin developed this theme further by concluding that socialism could not achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It would most probably first be established in one country, or in a few countries, “whilst the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois.”

The weakest link did break, as Lenin had foreseen, in Russia, though the tide of revolution was also mounting in other parts of Europe, impelled by the desperate desire of the peoples to end the war. Indeed, at one time it looked as if a socialist upheaval was about to triumph in Germany. It is hardly surprising that Lenin, the revolutionary leader, openly hailed this prospect, though he was resolutely opposed to the manipulating and artificial pushing or “driving forward” of any revolution from the outside, since for him this was essentially an inexorable social phenomenon ultimately shaped by internal forces. As E. H. Carr has observed, “it was the action of the western Powers toward the end of the year 1918 which contributed quite as much as of the Soviet government which had forced the international situation into a revolutionary setting.”[4]

Yet, being a realist, Lenin did not omit to stress from November 1917 onwards that it would be wrong and irresponsible for the young Soviet Republic to count on revolutions in other countries. They might or might not occur at the time one wished them to happen. There was no question either, as he said again and again, of trying to “export” the Russian Revolution.

While maintaining its belief in the ultimate victory of socialism in other countries, the young Soviet Republic had, meantime, to be prepared to stand on its own feet and to defend its own interests as a state. Not only had the forces of the White Guards and the interventionists to be defeated, but steps had to be taken to conclude peace with the capitalist countries and to prepare, under certain conditions and safeguards, for cooperation with them. Exploratory moves for the resumption of trade and economic relations with the Allied and Central Powers, as well as with neutral countries, had begun immediately after the conclusion of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. As early as May 1918, for instance, the Soviet government made, through the good offices of Colonel Raymond Robins (the representative of the American Red Cross in Petrograd) detailed and far-reaching offers to the United States of long-term economic relations, including the granting of concessions to private businessmen for the exploitation, subject to state control, of Russia’s vast and untapped raw material resources. These offers were reiterated a year later through William Bullitt. There was no response.

Military intrusion and economic harassment from the outside (the latter going to such lengths as “the gold blockade,” i.e. the refusal to accept gold for desperately needed imports) continued, forcing the Soviet government, as Lenin put it, to “go to greater lengths in our urgent Communist measures than would otherwise have been the case.” But the option of “peaceful cohabitation” with the capitalist world, based on normal economic, trade and diplomatic relations, was kept open nonetheless throughout this entire phase.

This emerges clearly from the writings and utterances of Lenin and the documents on Soviet foreign policy during the pre-NEP period. Indeed, one of the most incisive and farsighted definitions of the concept of peaceful coexistence dates back to the early summer of 1920 when, in a report on the foreign political situation of the Soviet Republic, the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs proclaimed that

“Our slogan was and remains the same: peaceful coexistence (mirnoye sosushchestvovaniye) with other Governments whoever they might be. Reality itself has led … to the need for establishing durable relations between the Government of the peasants and workers and capitalist Governments. . . . Economic reality calls for an exchange of goods, the entering into continuing and regulated relations with the whole world, and the same economic reality demands the same of the other Governments also.”[5]

Thus, the Soviet policy of peaceful coexistence has deep roots in the early history of the Russian Revolution and was most assuredly not something concocted on the spur of the moment for tactical use at Genoa.

[Our thanks to Foreign Affairs]

Click here to read the full article.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Interior view of the main hall of the Palazzo di San Giorgio, location of plenary meetings of the Genoa Conference of 1922. (Licensed under the Public Domain)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Washington-led Empire’s criminal war on Syria is a war against civilization itself.

Empire, with its legacy media accomplices, hides behind veils of fabricated lies to commit crimes against children, women, men, Muslims, Christians, minorities, secularism, democracy, and the entire fabric of the sovereign nation of Syria itself.

Empire balkanizes, steals, loots, plunders, and supports terrorism of all kinds, even as it imposes colllective punishment in the form of unilateral coercive measures against those in government-secured areas.

“Crimes Against Syria” unmasks the war propaganda apparatus. It presents the evidence-based truth that the West and its agencies seek to obscure.

Big lies of “humanitarian warfare” and the “Global War on Terror” are exposed for all to see. 

Watch the trailer below. 

Watch the full documentary below.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. He writes on his website where this article was originally published.

Featured image is from Syria News

---

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

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

To start with an anecdote of my personal intellectual history, I have to recall reading The Gulag Archipelago as a youth. There were two things that impressed me about this work although I later came to view much of the author‘s assertions to be questionable and distorted. However if one reads the entirety of Solzhenitsyn as literature there are still remarkable insights to be gleaned, even if the excessive attacks on the Soviet Union should be taken cum grano sale.

The first point was formal— the use of footnotes in a literary text to comment on what had been written in the main narrative. The second observation, anticipating Foucault et al., was the function of ordinary criminals in a population of political prisoners.

Footnotes can have the formal function of lending an otherwise weak or absent authority to a text full of unsubstantiated or anecdotal assertions. They can also permit the shift of reader attention from a story to the underlying or derivative aspects of that story. They can also instigate a dialogue with the text by showing the reader how to expose the covert reading of the shadow text.

The role of ordinary crime in disciplining political prisoners was described in some detail in the hundreds of pages Solzhenitsyn devoted to his topic, what he called the archipelago of incarceration throughout the Soviet Union to which political prisoners under Soviet Union law could be sent.

The form he chose was the literary version of the “docudrama“. Meanwhile less partisan authors and scholars have disputed the number of prisons and the actual number of prisoners suggested or claimed in Solzhenitsyn‘s book.

However this does not invalidate one of his central observations, namely the function of organized crime in the operation of an oppressive regime. To be clear about this, no matter what system creates and maintains prisons, prisons are instruments of oppression. Any discussion about theories of penitentiary organisation, correctional practice, punishment cannot erase this fundamental fact.

Moreover any society that lacks oppressive/ repressive capacity cannot maintain stable commerce and social interaction. Therefore the question is not whether a society has oppressive or repressive instruments but what does any given society value and therefore support or repress in order to maintain such values?

No later than what I have claimed in an earlier essay is the shift from surplus appropriation to scarcity management in economic theory, modern political economy has been taught through mass education as a new religion— a secular form of the grace and sin regime established by the Latin and Reformed clerical elite in the reorganisation of sparsely settled sedentary populations in the Western peninsula of Eurasia into fodder for nomadic barbarians who would extend their empire over two thirds of the Earth‘s surface. Until the political-economic apologists were faced with the abolition of slavery and the ascendency of an industrial proletariat, theory focused on how to allocate stolen wealth among the elite estates.

With the abolition of slavery (around 1886), the principal occupation of political-economists and the school known now as Social Darwinism was to explain how to prevent the newly freed and the proletariat from claiming their share of the wealth their labour had generated over half a millennia. The explanation they developed was the theory of marginal utility and the redirection of economic management to administering newly discovered „scarcity“.

Introduction of scarcity as the underlying condition of political economy— perversely at times when capitalist crises of overproduction were recurrent— was a sleight of hand.

Fast forward to the end of the War against the Soviet Union and Communism: in the US a Canadian Stanford (amazingly) economist named Lorie Tarshis published a textbook, The Elements of Economics (1947) An Introduction to the Theory of Price and Employment, that was recognized as the first textbook in the US based on the theories of John Maynard Keynes.

This book was quickly banned after a vicious letter-writing campaign led in part by archconservative and reputed CIA asset, William F. Buckley. When I say banned, I mean banned.

In more than twenty years it has been impossible for me to find even second-hand editions of this book. It is available only in a very difficult to use e-book version in Internet Archive. That is the condition more than fifty years after it was first published.

In its place was the Economics: An Introductory Analysis (1948) by Paul Samuelson. 

Why is that important? What has that to do with Solzhenitsyn and organized crime in prisons, one might ask?

Tarshis was far from being a communist as was insinuated at the time. John Maynard Keynes was a liberal. 

However Tarshis following Keynes included a very important chapter: on administered pricing and monopoly/ oligopoly.

Samuelson‘s contract as theoretical “hit man” was to expunge this critical element of political economy from the study and teaching of economics.

What is administered pricing? According to the fairy tale still propagated by Samuelson, all prices are derived from scarcity equations settled in the market by a tendency of supply and demand to reach equilibrium.

The deceit is that there is such a thing as “equilibrium”, never mind economic equilibrium.

Tarshis distinguished quite clearly between real economies of scarcity or surplus and oligarchic/ monopolistic economies. For Samuelson et al. oligarchy and monopoly are merely “imperfect competition”. This is akin to calling something ugly, less beautiful.

According to the so-called “neo-classical synthesis”, only the horrible socialists try to set prices and make economic decisions according to plans.

In the “free market” these decisions are the result of mathematical divination derived from the laws of economic nature. 

However, administered pricing, like administered energy policy, constitutes planning by invisible, publicly unaccountable actors in the private sector using such key performance indicators as return on investment (ROI) or simply how much profit can be obtained at any given price.

Since vertically integrated cartels can manipulate input/ factor prices, also with the help of rigged taxation and accounting rules, the question is not at what price will a certain demand level be satisfied but at what price a certain rate of profit can be obtained.

This is why such strategies as cross-subsidization or transfer pricing mechanisms can be used to obtain profits despite obvious price inflexibility at the end of the chain— the consumer. To the extent that this is discussed at all in Samuelson and his derivatives it is a pure aberration or distortion. Political power exercised to benefit these actors is concealed by the euphemism “externalities”.

How can a sane person say “distortion” when describing the impact of beneficial ownership of a media market where only five enterprises dominate the industry worldwide?

When five oligarchical entities operate under such a regime that were there real, enforceable anti-trust law would be forbidden only ignorance or mendacity can call it an exception. It must be treated as the rule. That is point.

Assuming that every single graduate that has passed through the Samuelson’s book continues either in academic or commercial economics, then we are talking about millions of people whose fundamental education ignores a central fact and operating principle of economics since the beginning of the 20th century.

The anecdotal evidence of global ignorance/ mendacity ought to be sufficient to convince any sober thinking person that what we are told about the economy and the society it constitutes is at least twenty per cent nonsense. (I am being generous here.)

The damage is actually much worse since the discipline is thus so detached from reality and bound by pseudo-scientific mathematical models that we cannot even begin to imagine another way of organizing resources.

Economist Michael Hudson has worked very hard to do this by returning to the original critical forms of political economic theory: Professor Hudson, who learned economics working in Business and not the Academy, also makes very clear that all modern economies are “planned”, Gosplan was responsible for the Soviet economy, while Wall Street—a closely held private financial cartel—plans the Western economy. See among others Hudson’s Superimperialism).

What does all this have to do with policing?

Since the declaration of the COVID-19 war in 2020 numerous business districts throughout the United States and other Western metropolises have experienced bizarre mass attacks mainly on the retail sector.

These attacks often followed or were contemporaneous with mass demonstrations apparently organized and/ or supported by offshore NGOs like Black Lives Matter and Antifascist Action or groups demonstrably trained by the successor to OTPOR. The attacks included looting, vandalism, arson, and assault and battery. Millions of US dollars in property damage were recorded. Many businesses closed their doors or were forced to create expensive security barriers to customers. During this period policing was conspicuous by its absence.

Before continuing the term “offshore” should be explained. The construction of astro-turf organizations requires funding. Organizations are needed to obtain and pay for facilities used whenever masses of people are brought together for any purpose. A daylong event of any sort, especially in countries like the US with a low density of public conveniences, needs provision for basic things like toilets and drinking water. These are key logistical elements of any sustained mass activity and they cost money.

A friend of mine from Leipzig who grew up there during the GDR era remarked often about the Monday demonstrations there: who paid for all the toilet facilities during those demonstrations?  There was a US TV sitcom, All in the Family (a variant of the 1965-75 British satire Till Death Us Do Part) that was initially quite scandalous not only because of fluid bigoted language but also because the protagonist explicitly talked about and went to the toilet in prime time television. Perhaps American culture is so sanitized that no one can even imagine the necessity of a toilet in public life. Offshore NGOs are these conduits for cash and organizational resources whose actual beneficial owners are screened from public view. The National Endowment for Democracy directs funds for such entities beyond US borders. Other government agencies facilitate these cash and resource flows in the West.

Nevertheless it did not take long to find that massive amounts of money were funnelled to bank accounts of these AstroTurf agents, announced for use as bail bond, etc.

At the same time banks on both sides of the great northern border were seizing donations for Canadian truckers protesting government policies.

The spokespersons for these demonstrations claimed that they were being held to protest against police brutality and racism, ostensibly in official conduct and economic behaviour.  These demonstrations received vast mass media and social media coverage. They were praised by public authorities at state and federal level and in rare instances also by local government officials. During these summers of discontent, much of the population was subject to house arrest; curfews and public assembly restrictions ordered in violation of all principles of due process under US law. In fact demonstrations attempted to protest the violations of constitutional rights to free speech, due process and freedom of assembly were strictly suppressed by police at all levels while these peculiar demonstrations against police brutality and racism were unobstructed. It became clear that many demonstrators at these events had been bussed in from other locations around the country. Hence local residents were an insignificant part of the action.

As argued in an earlier article, there is an ideology and a strategy at work here. The religious component is a missionary strategy based on and organized through a “purity” cult. However the social transformation or re-engineering which is the long-term plan has a serious economic component, too. That economic component is rooted in the theories of eugenics and marginal utility or marginalism. Both of these theories arise with a fundamental ideological change that matured in the Manhattan Project.

Prior to 1942, the prevailing – by that I mean also in popular culture—model of humans and nature was mechanical. Nature was a machine and humans, including their cerebral –corporeal interfaces, were mechanical. The culmination of this human model can be found in Frederick Taylor’s time-motion studies, explained in his Principles of Scientific Management (1911). There was a critique of this model among the Romantics but this minority was itself marginalized in favour of the apparently modern “systems” theories.

Romantic criticism of the emerging industrial society was complex and contradictory since, unlike the Enlightenment, Romanticism was not a concept of social coherence but an attempt to deal with the inherent incoherence of society and human personality. In any event by 1942, the Romantic approaches to humanism were thoroughly marginalized (to use this metaphor again) in favour of systems theory together with an analogue and then digital-calculation model human nature. When the first artificial intelligence (AI) claims were being asserted at US research universities, one of the leading developers of the underlying programming, Joseph Weizenbaum, denounced the cause in Computer Power and Human Reason (1976). In a talk he gave in the late-1990s in his native Germany, he reiterated that the so-called Information Society was fraudulent. Compulsive computation, as he called it, not only erroneously equated data with information it also substituted calculation for judgement.

Thus it also followed that the mathematical, compulsive model of the world prevented the judgement that would have condemned the Manhattan Project as the quest for the world’s most nihilistic weapons.  Today the computer model of man, the “hackable animal”, whose every act is described and defined on the basis of mathematical modelling, includes the negation of judgement (and of values). Instead this mathematical model of man, merely an aerobic program medium with disposable parts, forms the basis for re-engineering of a society that will be “sustainable and robust”. However there is a grand deception in this language developed through the appropriation of opposition language in the 1970s and its propagation as reconstituted liberation product—political-economic Velveeta. If the economy is driven by calculation of utility and economic man is governed by this rule, then he—yes, he—must by nature be a calculator and governed by the “laws” of mathematics. From this follows the anti-humanism of Norbert Weiner (Cybernetics, 1948) and Yuval Harar. It is crucial to recall that atomic weaponry and genetic engineering were developed contemporaneously and have continued parallel to this day as elements of a unified weapons suite.

The so-called UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ought to be judged first of all by their source. The source of all international policy from the United Nations and its agencies was and remains the executive suite of the world’s largest multinational corporations and the governments they own.

The flowery language aside—and one must see it for what it is, marketing (propaganda)—this is the agenda of institutions that have all been sworn to the worldview for which the Manhattan Project stands—atomic domination or annihilation of humanity. From this standpoint the human computer and the digital economy are a continuous fabric with the ARPA Net, now called the Internet, which was designed as sustainable communications in the wake of the two atomic strikes the then US Strategic Air Command had planned to destroy the USSR. That is the immoral foundation of this still proprietary technology that billions have been persuaded is the public sphere and governed by liberal freedoms like speech and assembly.

While there have been legal and commercial challenges to create some kind of public sphere out of this technological space—something akin to squatting and the doctrine of adverse possession—we have seen that the real owners of the Internet regularly assert their ownership, either through state agencies or corporate entities. We have yet to establish a doctrine that the electrical and communications grids upon which the theory of Internet liberty is premised can actually be articulated, let alone aggressively defended. Instead we are debating as to why private owners and their state agents do not respect archaic and naïve ideas about human liberty. Is this the fallacy of misplaced concreteness?

There is no enforceable legal regime because there is also no comprehensive economic regime that includes the human as someone more than a computer or machine with legs. There is no biological or moral regime because the argument has been accepted that humans are not animals like the rest of life on the planet and hence no more enemies of Nature than rabbits, fish, birds or fruit trees. Instead the psychopaths of compulsive calculation swoop around the planet to gather, catalogue, patent, digitalize and synthesize everything that could enable their sustainability. Those who fanatically argue for population reduction never appear on the assisted-suicide rosters. Could it be that they don’t mean a reduction of all the population?

Seemingly parallel—but actually at deniable arm’s length—the CIA sponsored World Economic Forum has not only taken the mantle sewn with SDGs it has also turned them into the loincloth for the not yet unsustainable to wear called “Diversity – Inclusion – Equity”—DIE, for short. (Their marketing departments certainly advised a different order of wording to avoid the obvious connotation.) The principal sponsors of this exclusive club and cutout for the “sustainable class” coincides with those whose wealth derives from the exact opposite of those terms, if one understands them naively. In fact, the WEF and the wholly owned United Nations apparatus are all beneficiaries of the atomic extortion system created by the Manhattan Project. What D-I-E means is literally what Stanley Kubrick so effectively depicted in Doctor Strangelove. It is the world depicted in Soylent Green. It includes the Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Outbreak. This Hollywood propaganda product has been called “predictive”. It is part of creating the psychological conditions for re-engineering.

So amid the Woke Crusade, the legally protected vandalism of vast majorities by “pure” fanatics, two phenomena have emerged to coincide with the worldwide counter-insurgency by force of arms (aka the War on Terror and now the war against Russia). These have been a) mass migration from the countries that the Anglo-American Empire and its vassals have been plundering and pillaging since 1975 almost without meaningful opposition at home or abroad and b) abject failure of even the most rudimentary public safety and policing mechanisms to function.

The rampages since 2020 mainly in the US and the mass illegal migration, in the US and EU but also in countries unfortunate enough to border the imperial plunder and pillage operations everywhere except perhaps Russia and China, are destroying the economic order in which the vast majority of people live their lives. Officially this disruption is a struggle for social justice. However justice is not a natural condition but one created within definable social contexts. Precisely these contexts, until now defined by nation-state legal and moral regimes, are under universal attack.

The assailants are not secret. The attack on definable social contexts in which local communities can establish and maintain social justice is being organized and conducted at the strategic level by those who own the United Nations and compose the World Economic Forum. The sustainable development goals they pursue are those which clearly permit them to sustain their position and power amidst the destruction of every other social structure that could in any way deviate from the digital-computational vision of life (let us not call it humanity) they have been raised to promote and impose.

It is clear testimony to the effectiveness of the psychological weapons used that while so much has been scrubbed from the Internet (or blocked by available search engines), one can still find a notorious 60-Minutes interview in which George Schwartz (Soros) unabashedly admits that since the age of 14 (!) he has unrepentantly participated in the deportation of people (also to slavery or death) in order to profit from confiscation of their goods and property. This man has been able to promote himself as a philanthropist while enriching himself for some 79 years by the same methods. His Open Society foundations, in addition to acting as conduits for other government agencies, have served as cadre schools and organizational support to thousands whose business model is the destruction of the citizen framework that has historically guaranteed social justice or any kind of organized cultural and economic life—for power and profit. He is demonstrably one of the major funders of the AstroTurf NGOs that wage the war for “purity” (DIE) throughout the world. Mr Soros is just the most prominent and unabashed of the atomic war elite. The dissolution of the legal and social context for communities, historical nations or states, is being pursued to create a world of statelessness in which no institutions are available to protect human beings, especially from those whose like Soros.

The removal of policing, whether of borders or city streets, is elemental to this policy.

The destruction of the SME sector, one of the COVID-19 objectives, was accelerated by the armed propaganda tactics of the offshore AstroTurf NGOs. There is a complex of weaponry deployed and the US itself has finally become the target of the strategy its owners have pursued for decades in every corner of the empire. Mass migration will flood the labour market in a country already deindustrialised. It will replace furloughed and mRNA poisoned workers and their families with raw muscle from abroad. At the same time the US will be subjected to unique tactics.

While the EU comprises populations long accustomed to national registration, social management and lack of lethal force among the citizens, the US is a society with a notoriously well-armed population. Moreover its most traditional elements include police, fire brigades, and military veterans indoctrinated with even more patriotism than the average person outside the US can imagine.

This poses a threat—mirrored in the regime’s fanatical attempts to prevent Donald Trump from standing in the next POTUS election. The ruling oligarchy has surely been asking itself, especially after growing barracks unrest following the forced mRNA injections, whether its uniformed security forces are sufficiently loyal. Therefore it is very likely that among these “military-aged” illegal immigrant males there are cohorts of trained paramilitary infiltrated into the country, like in Libya or Syria. All this can lead to a major reorganization of the economy based on new forms of forced labour and political repression. Without the SME sector the US population becomes even more dependent upon the oligarchs that own corporations like Amazon. At the same time the barriers between licit and illicit economy are being dissolved/ demolished. When ordinary business has to pay protection only armies will be able to do business.

The digital war, launched against humans in nature in 1945 with the obliteration of two Japanese cities opened a new era, the era of global nihilism whose lingua franca is mathematics and whose form of reality is the mathematical model in which humans are mere computational factors.

There are cultures on this planet still that resist this compulsive computation and its practice of natural and human degradation.

They cannot be reduced to digits or some factor or marginal utility.

They are not enemies of Nature but integral elements of Nature. It is necessary to remember that. Those who bombard us with lies about sustainability are only the descendants of the Strangeloves, the Tellers, von Neumanns, Oppenheimers and the psychopathic misanthropes who paid them for creating the means by which they may sustain themselves (they believe) at the expense of annihilating the rest of us. The Sustainable Development Goals and DIE are the immoral basis by which sustainable atomic, biological and chemical war can be waged against Nature and its human members.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. T.P. Wilkinson writes, teaches History and English, directs theatre and coaches cricket between the cradles of Heine and Saramago. He is also the author of Church Clothes, Land, Mission and the End of Apartheid in South Africa.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“First thing I saw was trees up and down every street and between houses in Santa Rosa California where the houses are not partially burned. They’re turned to white ash like a crematorium. But, above all that, I saw the trees virtually untouched! And that didn’t go well for me, knowing my whole background in trees! …I didn’t know what was going on here! This was all new to me!”

– Robert Brame, Forensic arborist upon analyzing 38 fires in California and presenting photographs detailing fire behaviour not considered possible. [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW


Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

According to media reports, Canada’s experience with wildfires is without precedent. Millions of acres of forest from BC to Alberta to Quebec to New Brunswick were scorched. Thousands of residents of Yellowknife in the North West Territories were withdrawn from their lodgings as the flames advanced mercilessly. [2][3]

And the many, many distraught people who lost their homes look bleakly into the night-time sky and ask the question why.

The most available answer to explain the scenario comes up in the universities and mainstream media. Climate Change. If only human society had acted sooner…if only we had committed more resources to reversing the tide…if only we valued nature over the new stylish hummer…if only we had not been burdened by the presence of all those nasty climate change deniers… this new phenomenon of wildfires along with other weather disasters could have been avoided. [4]

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is scheduled to visit New York City in the coming week to talk of Climate Change. And his Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault are planning tough measures to take Canada toward “carbon neutrality” before it is too late. [5][6]

It should however be pointed out that individuals have been caught committing acts of arson in many of these forests. As well, people are witnessing the wildfires in Maui and in California and so on have some peculiar properties. For example, photography of homes destroyed, cars destroyed, while a nearby trees are still erect! [7][8]

Whether or not one commits to the principle that carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas is helping to warm the world, it does seem that people who may wish to execute a major disaster for their own purposes might like to give the world a notorious villain-at-large to blame it on. Looking at this dynamic forms the basis for this week’s look back at the “Summer of Hell” courtesy of the Global Research News Hour.

In our first half hour, we speak with frequent guest Peter Koenig, who has written two recent articles for Global Research on the topic of Environmentally Modified Techniques (ENMOD) which he says may be causing the extreme weather phenomena that we have been witnessing over the last few years.

In our second half hour, we are joined by Anthony Hall, an Alberta-based academic and colleague. He has also written on Climate Change “Fakery,” the rivalry between the Canadian Prime Minister and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and spells out the dynamics between oil and gas rich province of Alberta and the bulk of the population dwelling in Eastern Canada.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing. He is the author of two recent articles: The Criminal Insanity of Climate Change: Direct Energy Weapons (DEW) Create Forest and Bush Fires, Destroying Entire Cities and Igniting Boats in the Sea and Morocco and Morocco – Earthquake Preceded by Mysterious Blue Lights

Anthony Hall is a Professor Emeritus of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He had been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has published a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.HE contributes to Global Research. His recent article Oil and Gas and Climate Change Fakery is published in full on his substack and will appear in multiple parts on GR.

In addition, one can check out the vast archives on ENMOD and climate change on Global Research. As well, check out the other climate links in the Peter Koenig and Anthony Hall archives.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 400)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW


Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHeoaIh7cx8
2. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/11/1187105458/this-is-canadas-worst-fire-season-in-modern-history-but-its-not-new
3. https://www.voanews.com/a/thousands-flee-canadian-wildfires-british-columbia-under-state-of-emergency/7232027.html
4. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65837040
5. https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/prime-minister-attend-united-nations-141700888.html
6. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/danielle-smith-alberta-interim-emissions-targets-steven-guilbeailt-1.6967778#:~:text=The%20governments%20of%20Alberta%20and%20Canada%20met%20Sept.,finding%20consensus%20around%20emissions%20reduction%20and%20energy%20development.
7. Tristin Hopper (June 13, 2023),’FIRST READING: Are eco-terrorists causing all the fires?’, National Post; https://nationalpost.com/news/are-eco-terrorists-causing-all-the-fires
8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHeoaIh7cx8

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

First published on Global Research on April 7, 2023

In 2022, Srdjan Aleksic, a lawyer from Nis, Serbia began a legal process against NATO. Since 2017 (when the gathering of evidence began) until this day over four thousand citizens of Serbia (including Kosovo and Metohija) have shown interest in suing NATO due to their own cancer diagnoses and diagnoses of their family members that they believe have a direct connection to the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 where uranium was used.

NATO has already confessed that they have dropped over 15 ton of uranium over Kosovo and Metohija and the southern parts of Serbia such as Presevo, Bujanovac and Vranje.

As a result of these bombings, over thirty thousand people every year in Serbia is diagnosed with cancer, this in a country that before the bombings in 1999 had less than seven thousand citizens diagnosed with cancer every year. Serbia is now the country in Europe that has the largest number of cancer diagnoses and the second in the world.

Andjelo Fiore Tartalja a lawyer from Italy is a part of Srdjan Aleksic legal team and is advising him in regard to the lawsuits filed against NATO on the behalf of Serbian citizens.

Tartalja has won over 350 cases in Italy where he has proven that Italian soldiers and officers in peacekeeping forces that were stationed in Kosovo and Metohija (after the bombings), where the largest amount of uranium bombs were thrown, have been diagnosed with cancer and many of which have died as a direct consequence of the uranium in NATO’s bombs. In their blood analysis 500 times more metal was found than normal. Over seven thousand Italian soldiers and officers have been diagnosed with cancer after their service in Kosovo and Metohija and 400 have passed away. It is also important to stress the fact that not only in Serbia has there been a huge increase in cancer diagnoses but also in neighbouring countries such as Bulgaria, Romania, North Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

It is believed that the particles from uranium bombs expand extensively after hitting their target (depending on a number of factors) and that it takes over 4.5 billion years for uranium to decay and that it stays in the soil for thousands of years and perhaps even longer. So not only is NATO responsible for “crimes against humanity” when using these bombs and leaving behind residual mines, they have committed the crime of Ecocide, where they have damaged and destructed Serbia’s ecosystem and biodiversity. Although this has not yet been recognized as a crime under international law, it is being contemplated so both humans, corporations and armies can be held accountable for the crimes of harmful pollution.

Srdjan Aleksic and his team of lawyers have so far collected the medical documentation and power of attorney documentation of 1.500 citizens and 35 cases have been field in the higher court in Belgrade. Every month they file 10 new cases and will continue to do so. In the cases where the plaintiff is deceased, family members have forwarded the medical documentation and will continue the procedure on their behalf, and even these cases will be field in the higher court in Belgrade.

Srdjan Aleksic and his team of lawyers are not interested in economic gain and are not charging their clients for their legal work since most of the plaintiffs are from the southern parts of Serbia that are extremely poor and have already sold almost everything they possess only to be treated for their cancer. It is believed that more plaintiff`s would sue NATO but the taxes just to begin the legal process in Serbia are 350 Euro and most people in the southern parts of Serbia do not have the means to pay these taxes. Srdjan Aleksic also has a personal agenda since his mother and many of his family members from his village near Bujanovac died of cancer after the NATO bombings.

Due to the increase of cancer diagnoses in Bosnia and Hercegovina after the NATO bombings in 1995 many citizens are contemplating suing NATO believing that the uranium used then as well is the cause of their cancer diagnoses. They are currently waiting to see the outcome of the trials in Serbia before they begin their legal procedures.

NATO has replied, stating that they have immunity and that they do not have to answer to the higher court in Belgrade because of the Transit Agreement signed in 2005 between Serbia and NATO and Serbia joining the Partnership for Peace in 2006.

The Transit Agreement and Partnership for Peace have no connection to the legal cases mentioned in this article, the Transit Agreement is simply an agreement that allows allied forces serving as part of KFOR to pass through Serbian territory. The Partnership of Peace is Serbia cooperating with NATO and the Tribunal in Hague. Srdjan Aleksic says that immunity cannot be implemented retroactively since the bombings took place in 1999 and the agreements were signed six years later. The trials have been postponed due to the death of Colonel Dragan Stojcic (served 280 days at the border between Kosovo and Serbia and in Kosovo) that passed away due to his cancer. He was the first plaintiff to sue NATO. His wife will continue his procedure in court. The trials are expected to start at the end of 2023.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Natali Milenkovic is a student at the University of Malmo.

Sources

Bujanovacke Vesti. 31 March, 2023 : https://bujanovacke.co.rs/2023/03/31/advokat-aleksic-stanovnici-juga-srbije-prodaju-sve-da-bi-se-lecili-od-raka/.

Danas. 23 March 2022: https://www.danas.rs/vesti/drustvo/nato-jos-nije-primio-tuzbe-pa-sudjenje-ne-moze-da-pocne/.

Europa.eu. “NATO`s Relation with Serbia”: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/sede/dv/sede130411natoserbia_/sede130411natoserbia_en.pdf.

RTRS. 12 June 2022: https://lat.rtrs.tv/vijesti/vijest.php?id=476700.

Vesti Online. 8 November 2022: https://www.vesti-online.com/i-srpska-da-tuzi-nato-2/.

Telegraf. 13 June 2022: https://www.telegraf.rs/vesti/srbija/3512301-vise-od-3000-srba-zeli-da-tuzi-nato-zbog-raka-kao-posledice-bombardovanja-odsteta-i-do-300000-evra.

First published by GR in December 2015

On April 26, 2018 the National Archive released 19045 classified documents on the JFK assassination:  

In accordance with President Trump’s direction on October 26, 2017, the National Archives today posted 19,045 documents subject to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Act).   Released documents are available for download.  The versions released today were processed by agencies in accordance with the President’s direction that agency heads be extremely circumspect in recommending any further postponement.

***

The following essay is based on a talk given by Peter Dale Scott at the Third Annual JFK Assassination Conference in Dallas, 2015. (Produced by TrineDay Books, Conscious Community Events, and the JFK Historical Group.). It was first published by Who What Why and Global Research on December 24, 2015 

(This is Part 1 of a three-part series. For Part 2, please go here, and for Part 3, go here.)

Why Helms Perjured Himself

I wish in this essay to show how Richard Helms first lied to the Warren Commission about the CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald. I argue that his performance, and that of other CIA officials up to the present, constituted significant obstruction of justice with respect to one of this country’s most important unsolved murder cases.

image right: Peter Dale Scott

Furthermore, we can deduce from the carefully contrived wording of Helms’s lies what the CIA most needed to hide: namely, that the CIA had recently launched a covert operation involving the name of Lee Harvey Oswald (and perhaps Oswald himself), only five weeks before President Kennedy was killed.

That operation—either in itself, or because it was somehow exploited by others—would appear to have become a supportive part of the assassination plot. It seems almost certain moreover that the “Oswald operation” became the focal point of the ensuing CIA cover-up, and of Helms’s perjury.

As I relate in my book Dallas ’63: The First Revolt of the Deep State Against the White House, there was culpable lying and cover-up from many others in high places, including individuals in the FBI, the Secret Service, ONI, and probably still more military intelligence agencies.

For example, the FBI first reported truthfully to both LBJ and the Secret Service on November 23 that a recording of someone calling himself “Lee Oswald” in Mexico City had been listened to by FBI agents in Dallas, who were “of the opinion that [the man in Mexico] was not Lee Harvey Oswald”.[1]

Two days later Dallas FBI agents, along with the FBI Legat in Mexico City, reported falsely on November 25 that “no tapes were taken to Dallas”.[2] Subsequently the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) used this false report, compounded by false and misleading logic, to conclude that there was no “basis for concluding that there had been an Oswald imposter”.[3]

We should not conclude from the change in the FBI’s story about the tapes that either it, or still less the HSCA, was involved in the Kennedy assassination. It does however seem extremely likely that further investigation of the Oswald imposter in Mexico City would have, one way or another, have led to exposure of the CIA’s Oswald operation exposed in this essay.

The CIA and FBI were not alone in their post-assassination falsification of facts about Oswald. At one point even the Mexican government participated in this high-level cover-up: It supplied when needed a falsified bus manifest and later a falsified version of its statement taken from Cuban Consulate official Silvia Durán.[4]

Without doubt the post-assassination cover-up of what happened was high-level, and widespread.

But the CIA lies differ from those of other agencies in two important respects. First, the CIA was lying about Oswald before the assassination, as well as after. Specifically the CIA lied about Oswald on October 10, 1963, in two important and lengthy outgoing cables, DIR 74673 and 74830, about which I shall say much more.[5] Second, the CIA lies have also continued over time, and can be construed as an on-going obstruction of justice.

One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize this. Tim Weiner, a New York Times journalist, has written a well-informed book about the CIA, Legacy of Ashes. In that book he, like other mainstream journalists, describes Oswald as a lone assassin. And yet he still acknowledges that the conduct of James Angleton, the CIA’s Chief of Counterintelligence (CI), was “an obstruction of justice.”[6]

Richard Helms Lies to the Warren Commission, March 1964

Let us now look at Helms’s informative lies about the CIA and Oswald. On March 6, 1964, from Richard Helms sent an important memo to J. Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission staff. This memo was the first page of what we know as Warren Commission Document 692, the so-called “CIA’s Official Oswald Dossier.” In this memo, which was declassified in 1973, Helms wrote, “There is attached an exact reproduction of the Agency’s official dossier on Lee Harvey OSWALD beginning with the opening sheet dated 9 December 1960.”[7]

There was a lot concealed by this sentence. To begin with, the CIA did not have just one “official dossier” on Oswald but at least two. Helms was referring to the so-called 201 Counterintelligence file on Oswald. But there was at least one other official Oswald file, in the Office of Security. In addition we know of a so-called “soft file” on Oswald maintained in the Soviet Russia division of the CIA’s Department of Plans, and there may have been more.

Much more importantly, what Helms gave the Commission was far from “an exact reproduction” of the actual Counterintelligence Oswald file. Instead he transmitted a radically curtailed version of it in a new file of March 1964  (XAAZ 22592), which the CIA much later acknowledged was a file “prepared [the CIA’s word] for the Warren Commission.”[8] The word “prepared” is important. Like ONI, and almost certainly the FBI, Helms and the CIA did not deliver “an exact reproduction” of an original Oswald file, but of a file that had been belatedly “prepared” in March for others to see.[9]

CIA Lies about Oswald, October 1963

In the redaction of this 201 file prepared for the Warren Commission the CIA removed the most sensitive and relevant portion of the original: a series of cables in and out of CIA Headquarters concerning Oswald, beginning just six weeks before the assassination.[10] (It is clear from a much later CIA document that the original copies of these cables were located in Oswald’s Counterintelligence file, 201-289248).[11] In their place was a sanitized and in some respects inaccurate description of these messages, supplied earlier as Warren CD 347 of January 31, 1964. In September 1992 a CIA Memo to the National Archives admitted that these cables were only “added [i.e. restored] to the ‘pre-assassination’ [CIA’s quotes] file (XAAZ 22592) after the file was prepared for the Warren Commission.”[12]

(Helms’s memo described the January 1964 memo in the “prepared” file as covering “all substantive developments affecting CIA in the matter of Lee Harvey OSWALD from 9 October to 22 November 1963.” We shall have more to say about this contorted legal language below, when we come to discuss Helms’s perjury.

As most assassinations researchers know, the suppressed materials began with MEXI 6453, a cable from Mexico City on October 9, reporting that “an American male who… said his name [was] Lee Oswald” had spoken of meeting in the Soviet Embassy with the “Consul, whom he believed [to] be Valeriy… Kostikov.”[13] (The source for this cable was LIENVOY, a CIA tap on the Soviet Embassy telephone, which produced the tape listened to on November 23 by FBI agents in Dallas.)

The news in this cable was, if true, important and indeed explosive information. Kostikov was a known KGB agent, and the FBI believed he was also an assassination agent. True or false, the news would become even more sensitive after the Kennedy assassination was blamed on Oswald, setting off what I have called the “Phase One” story that the KGB night have been responsible for the president’s murder. It is now firmly established that this Phase One story (later replaced by the more innocuous Phase Two story that the president was killed by a lone nut) was the story used by Johnson to persuade Chief Justice Ear Warren and others to serve on the Warren Commission.

CIA headquarters, in response to this report, sent out two cables on October 10, which transmitted more information about Oswald that was in places both false and mutually contradictory. The cable to CIA Mexico began with the claim “Lee Oswald who called Sovemb 1 Oct probably identical Lee Henry Oswald… born 18 Oct 1939,” even though the authors of the cable knew very well the real name of the man born in 1939 was Lee Harvey Oswald; “Lee Henry Oswald” was a name invented in 1960 by one of the cable’s authors and used only in some CIA records.[14]

Of the other falsehoods, one will deserve further attention: the claim that “Latest HDQS info was [State] report dated May 1962 saying [State] had determined Oswald is still US citizen and both he and his Soviet wife have exit permits and Dept State had given approval for their travel with their infant child to USA.” [15]

This claim that CIA last heard of Oswald when he was still in Russia was not just absurdly false, it was a lie. The CIA had received many FBI reports since his return, and we know from their CIA Routing Sheets that some of those signing off on the October 10 cable had seen these reports. Just two weeks before the cable, the CIA had received an FBI report of September 24 on Oswald’s arrest in New Orleans; and the Routing Sheet for that report shows that two of the CIA officers who signed off on the cable (John Whitten and Jane Roman) had read it.[16]

(After the two falsified cables were released, CIA Counterintelligence officer Jane Roman was interviewed about them by John Newman and Jefferson Morley. Faced with the clear evidence of falsehood, Roman conceded, “Yeah, I mean I’m signing off on something that I know isn’t true.”[17])

Explanation for CIA October Lies about Oswald: a Counterintelligence LCIMPROVE Operation

One explanation for these pre-assassination falsehoods is relatively clear: the cables were part of a counterintelligence operation. This was confirmed by the release of the MEXI 6453 cable in 1993 with its “action indicator,” LCIMPROVE, no longer redacted.

An LCIMPROVE operation, the CIA later explained to the House Committee on Assassinations, referred to  “Counter Espionage involving Soviet intelligence services (worldwide)”,[18] LCIMPROVE operations had targeted Soviet officials in Oswald’s orbit since at least 1959, when one target was the Soviet consul in Finland (Gregory Golub) who issued Oswald a visa to enter the Soviet Union.[19] Another LCIMPROVE target in 1963 was a Soviet Embassy companion of Valeriy Kostikov, who was himself a target of a CIA recruitment operation (“REDCAP”).[20]

Another sign that the cables were part of an operation is that the October 10 reply to Mexico was authenticated by William Hood, the Chief of Operations for the CIA’s Western Hemisphere Division.[21] In other words, a lie on October 10 in a cable about Oswald was not necessarily culpable, merely evidence of a counterintelligence operation.

As I have written in Dallas ’63, falsified copies of documents about Oswald, notably from the State Department, had been used as part of a mole hunt by CI Chief James Angleton from the time of Oswald’s 1959 “defection” to Russia.[22] However the CIA cables about Oswald in October 1963 were unprecedented: the first time that the CIA initiated false information about Oswald and shared it with other agencies.

All of this may have been authorized as part of a counterintelligence operation. But after the assassination Helms’s concealment of the existence of this operation from the Warren Commission was a different matter.

Endnotes:

[1] Church Committee Staff memo of  March 5, 1976, 1; Miscellaneous Records of the Church Committee, NARA 157-10014-19168 , 3(LBJ); AR 250 (Secret Service). Cf. Memorandum of Belmont to Tolson of 11/23/53: “Dallas agents who listened to the tape allegedly of Oswald…and examined the photographs… were of the opinion that neither the tape nor the recording pertained to Oswald.” Quoted in NARA 157-10014-19168, 5; HSCA, “Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City” (aka “Lopez Report”), Addendum to Footnote 614, 11 (518). [Throughout these footnotes WR, WH, and WCD refer to the Report, Hearings, and unpublished Documents of the Warren Commission (1964); AR and AH refer to the Report and Hearings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations or HSCA (1979). Legat refers to the FBI representative in Mexico City. NARA #000-00000-00000 refers to a document RIF (reference) number in the National Archives. All those cited in this essay can be seen on line by searching for them by the RIF 13-digit number on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website, http://www.maryferrell.org.]

[2] AR 250 (Dallas FBI agents); Lopez Report, 12 (519) (Legat). The Legat cable is reproduced in NARA 157-10014-19168, 8, but is mostly illegible.

[3] AR 250: “The committee determined that CIA headquarters never received a recording of Oswald’s voice. The Committee concluded, therefore [sic], that the information [that the two voices had been compared and found to be different] was mistaken and did not provide a basis for concluding that there had been an Oswald imposter.” But it was the Dallas FBI, not the CIA, who listened to the recording, which in any case was precisely not “a recording of [Lee Harvey] Oswald’s voice.“ The HSCA Report also said that “at 7:23 p.m. (CST) on November 23, `953, Dallas Special Agent-in-Charge Shanklin advised Director Hoover that only a report of this conversation was available, not an actual tape recording” (AR 250). In fact Shanklin’s cable read, “the actual tape from which this transcript was made has been erased” (Lopez Report, 12 (519).  Shanklin’s claim was based on an FBI cable to him from Mexico City saying “CIA has advised that these tapes have been erased” (FBI Cable of November 23 from Eldon Rudd to SAC, Dallas; FBI file MX 105-3702-12, NARA #124-10230-10430). This false claim by the CIA was reversed on November 24; see Scott, Dallas ’63, 25.

[4] Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 95-96, citing 24 WH 673, 682; 25 WH 736 (bus manifest); Peter Dale Scott, Oswald, Mexico, and Deep Politics (New York: Skyhorse, 2013), 118-21 (Durán statement).

[5] NARA #104-10015-10052; NARA 3104-10015-10048.

[6] Tim Weiner, Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA (New York: Doubleday, 2007), 230: Angleton’s “conduct was an obstruction of justice.”

[7] Warren CD 692, 1.

[8] Memo of 4  September “1982” [i.e. 1992] for NARA Reviewers, “Oswald 201 File, Pre-Assassination File,” 201-289248, p. 211, http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95567&search=%22Oswald_201+File%2C+Pre-Assassination+File%22#relPageId=2&tab=page.

[9] For the ONI file prepared for Assistant Secretary of Defense McNaughton, see Peter Dale Scott, Dallas ’63: The First Deep State Revolt Against the White House, 83-84. The FBI HQ file on Oswald deposited in the National Archive, 105-82555, appears to have been falsified: what is now included as the first recorded serial, 105-82555-1, is apparently a substitute for the original first recorded serial; for the document, a 1959 news story from the Corpus Christ Times about Oswald’s defection, is clearly stamped “NOT RECORDED”.

[10] These cables, together with a CIA Mexico memo of October 16, 1963, are now in the National Archives (and MFF website) as records 104-10015-10047 through 104-10015-10053.

[11] “Russ Holmes Work File,” NARA # 104-10406-10009, 7.

[12] Memo of 4  September “1982” [i.e. 1992] for NARA Reviewers, “Oswald 201 File, Pre-Assassination File,” 201-289248, p. 211. The prepared file that became CD 692 with Helms’s memo of March 1964 was XAAZ 22595 (NARA # 1993.07.20.15:16:21:930270), not “22592” as reported in the 1982 CIA memo. The January 1964 summary (CD 347) was XAAZ 22594 (“A Collection of Cables,” CIA, NARA #104-10422-10021, p, 12/13). XAAZ 22593 concerned the “unidentified individual” who may or may not have been the person who identified himself as “Lee Oswald” in a phone call to the Soviet Embassy (CIA Draft Document, NARA # 104-10213-10022, p. 38). XAAZ 22593 is not on the MFF website.

[13] MEXI 6453 of 9 Nov 1963 to DIR, NARA #104-10015-10047.

[14] DIR 74830 of 10 Oct 1963 to Mexico City, NARA #104-10015-10048.

[15] DIR 74673 of 10 Nov 1963  to State, FBI and Navy, Subject: Lee Henry Oswald, NARA #104-10015-10052.

[16] CIA Routing and Record Sheet for DBA 52355, NARA #104-10015-10046.

[17] Jefferson Morley, “What Jane Roman Said; Part 3: The Interview,” http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/morley3.htm\; John Newman, Oswald and the CIA (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1995), 405.

[18] “LIST OF NAMES RE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION INVESTIGATION,” NARA #104-10061-10115, 23 “Counter Espionage involving Soviet intelligence services (worldwide”), 23; cf. 22. Cf. Bill Simpich, “The JFK Case; the Office that Spied on its Own Spies,” http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/THE-JFK-CASE–THE-OFFICE-by-Bill-Simpich-100310-266.html.

[19] Bill Simpich, The JFK Case: The Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend, Part Two: An Instant Visa Gets the Marine into Moscow,” http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-JFK-CASE–THE-TWELVE-by-Bill-Simpich-100830-157.htmll. Cf. e.g.  NARA #104-10172-10294, CIA Dispatch of 28 August 1959, REDCAP/LCIMPROVE, “Procuring of Female Companionship for Grigoriy Ye. Golub,”.

[20] E.g. NARA 104-10162-10316, Dispatch of 27 September 1963 from COS Mexico to Chief WH, REDCAP KOSTIKOV, HMMA-22179. September 27, the date of this dispatch, is the day “Lee Oswald” is reported to have entered the Soviet Embassy and Cuban Consulate.

[21] DIR 74830 to MEXI of 10 October 1963; NARA #104-10015-10048,.

[22] Scott, Dallas ’63, 43-74.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The State Department announced on August 15 that the US views the improvement in relations between Beijing and Moscow with “concern.” The announcement was made only days after the US sent warships to monitor Chinese and Russian ships engaged in joint naval exercises in international waters. Nonetheless, the statement is contradictory since the US forced, with their aggressive actions, the tightening of relations between Beijing and Moscow.

State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel addressed a summit between the US, Japan, and South Korea, where the focus is the People’s Republic of China. When asked whether US efforts to “re-establish communication channels with China” could be undermined, Patel said no but expressed concerns about ties between Beijing and Moscow.

“We also have been clear about the continued concern of the PRC and Russia closening their relationship and the steps that they’ve taken as well. So I don’t think these things are zero-sum. We can continue to pursue all of these things appropriately,” he said.

Patel’s remarks come after Washington sent several guided missile destroyers to monitor a group of Russian-Chinese ships that sailed close to the coast of Alaska during a joint military exercise. A US Northern Command spokesperson told CNN that the Russian-Chinese joint naval exercises were a show of force that prompted a US military response but did not pose a threat to the US or Canada.

This did not stop a deluge of claims from the Republicans that US President Joe Biden was failing to deal with the Russia-China alliance. The Republicans unsurprisingly omitted how Washington’s aggressive behaviour first brought the two countries into a close relationship. Russia and China were forced to strengthen their defence and economic ties due to the US emboldening Ukraine to war with Russia and arming and manipulating Taiwan to serve as a pressure point against mainland China. 

Trade between Russia and China continues to increase after reaching historic highs in 2022, with imports and exports growing at a double-digit pace since the beginning of this year, according to data released on August 8 by the General Administration of Customs. According to the agency, bilateral trade grew 36.5% between January and July compared to last year, reaching $134.5 billion. During the analysed period, Chinese exports to Russia increased by 73.4% compared to the previous year, reaching $62.5 billion.

Chinese imports from Russia increased by 15.1% to $72 billion. Only in July, the volume of business between the two countries reached $19.4 billion, with Chinese exports of $10.2 billion, slightly surpassing imports from Russia of $9.2 billion. As of the end of 2022, trade between Russia and China grew by 29.3% year-on-year to a record $190.3 billion and is expected to surpass the target of $200 billion soon.

Russian President Vladimir Putin revealed in June at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum that over 80% of trade settlement between Russia and China is now conducted in Russian rubles and Chinese yuan. His comments came just a month after Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said that energy trading between China and Russia had been settled in their local currencies.

Nonetheless, the dollar is still the most used currency for trade globally, and according to the International Monetary Fund, nearly 60% of international reserves are held in dollar-denominated assets. Western-led sanctions against Russia are making other countries wary of the potential consequences of angering Washington, none more so than China.

Economic ties between Moscow and Beijing have been bolstered by the two countries’ decision to conduct most transactions in national currencies rather than the US dollar to protect themselves from sanctions. Moscow and Beijing were forced to increase efforts to reduce dependence on the dollar and the euro in international trade since Russia is under sanctions and the trade war between the US and China continues.

However, Russia and China cooperate in more than just the economic sphere and the de-dollarisation process. They are also extending their ties in the military sphere.

China’s defence minister Li Shangfu addressed the Moscow Conference on International Security on August 15, his second to Russia since assuming his role as defence chief only earlier this year, thus demonstrating the importance of bilateral ties.  He also met with his Russian counterpart Sergei Shoigu to discuss cooperation between the two countries’ militaries, which have been more regularly carrying out joint exercises – including the joint naval patrol off the Alaskan coast previously mentioned.

The fact that the US has “concerns” about improving relations between Beijing and Moscow demonstrates the weak strategic thinking and planning in Washington since their decision to attack these countries simultaneously economically and wage psychological military pressure has resulted in bringing their ties closer.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

 

 

.

Part I of this study introduced the subject and discussed the psychological and political methods used to control our minds.

The Elite’s 5,000-Year War on Your Mind Is Climaxing. Can We Defeat It?

Part 2  (below) considers the medical and technological methods used and explain what is necessary to win this war.

**

Medical Mind Control

Mind control methods extend far beyond childhood terrorization reinforced by other psychological as well as political methods in their various forms.

Most notoriously, no doubt, among his other ‘experiments’, Dr. Josef Mengele supposedly studied mind-control at Auschwitz, with these ‘medical’ experiments sometimes leading to the death of his subjects.

A Freedom of Information document in 2010 exposed the ongoing, if relabeled, work of MK-Ultra – the illegal human experimentation program initiated by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the 1950s which employed many former Nazi and (Italian) fascist scientists (discussed further below) – including some of its less savoury elements such as its torture of children ostensibly in its conduct of ‘mind control’ experiments.

See ‘MK-ULTRA: CIA Mind Control, Sleeper Cells and Child Kidnappings’.

Other research has documented how much of MK-Ultra’s ‘medical torture’ was conducted within and beyond US borders, secretly and without the consent of those impacted, including on indigenous children and black prisoners. One Canadian victim testified in court that she had been held against her will and that her torturers ‘drugged her with LSD and other substances, subjected her to electroshock treatments, and exposed her to auditory indoctrination’ as part of their attacks on her mind.

See ‘New Docs Link CIA to Medical Torture of Indigenous Children and Black Prisoners’.

But for a reasonably comprehensive and horrific overview of the US government’s longstanding and ongoing efforts to subvert the autonomy, including mental autonomy, of its citizenry – including identification and description of key programs beyond MK-Ultra, such as ‘Cointelpro’ (‘a series of secret projects conducted by the FBI between 1956 and 1971 aimed at “neutralizing political dissidents”… [by] “making them incapable of engaging in political activity by whatever means.”’)

– see ‘U.S. Government Projects & Programs That Have Included Criminal and Unethical Actions Against Civilians’.

This account documents many US government programs, such as that labeled ‘Project Bluebird’ (later relabeled ‘Project Artichoke’), which was designed to deliberately create dissociative identity disorder (multiple personalities) ‘using trauma and inhumane practices for the purposes of mind control’, and ‘Northwoods’, designed ‘to trick the American public and international community into supporting a war by attacking and killing innocent U.S. citizens and blaming it on terrorism’.

See ‘Trauma-Based Victimization & Mind Control – Overview’. But there are many other examples carefully described, documented and illustrated on this website.

These projects, like others, were not the work of some fringe agency but again used Nazi scientists as well as a long list of prestigious US institutions, corporations and military bases as locations for the experimentation.

See ‘Project Monarch: Nazi Mind Control’.

But medical mind control is not limited to secretive work by government agencies, corporations and ‘research’ institutions. Many versions of it are imposed openly on society with devastating consequences.

Most notably, since early in his now very long career, ‘the conscience of psychiatry’ Dr Peter Breggin has ‘continued to develop the brain-disabling principle of psychiatric treatment. It states that all physical treatments in psychiatry – drugs, electroshock and psychosurgery – disable the brain and that none improve brain function.’ See ‘The Brain-Disabling Principle of Psychiatric Treatment’ in ‘Psychiatric Reform Accomplishments’.

Most horrifically, this has included the extensive use of a range of psychiatric interventions – notably including psychiatric drugs (see, for example, Medication Madness: A Psychiatrist Exposes the Dangers of Mood-Altering Medications), electroshock and lobotomy (‘psychosurgery’) (see, for example, Brain Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry: Drugs, Electroshock, and the Psychopharmaceutical Complex) – extensively documented by Breggin to have seriously incapacitated or killed substantial numbers of children and adults, including in racist contexts (see ‘Campaigns against racist federal programs by the center for the study of psychiatry and psychology’), particularly in North America and Europe.

In his extensive body of work – elaborated in The Conscience of Psychiatry: The Reform Work of Peter R. Breggin, MD – Breggin has exposed and often effectively campaigned to halt a long series of invasive psychiatric interventions against those people unfortunately targeted by ‘organized psychiatry, drug companies, and government agencies’. The book also offers ‘a probing critique of the psychopharmaceutical complex.’ If you prefer to read a summary (up to 2008) of Dr Breggin’s work to defend the human mind, you can do so at

‘Psychiatric Reform Accomplishments of Peter Breggin, M.D., 1954 to the Present’.

But Dr Breggin, with the support of his wife Ginger, is still campaigning to defend your mind, most recently against the threats posed by the Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ with its mind- and life-destroying ingredients including nanotechnology (which is discussed further in the section headed ‘Technological Mind Control’ below).

See ‘Blurring Lines: Nanotechnology, Vaccines, and Control’.

Beyond these measures, however, the public has long suffered the deliberate release into communities of both ‘approved’ pharmaceutical drugs and ‘illegal’ drugs which are designed to control the mind of those impacted, even if it is just done by making people mentally and, hence, socially dysfunctional.

The most obvious examples of this are, respectively, the widespread administration of injections approved by government health authorities, which have triggered an epidemic of attention disorders such as autism, and the CIA’s distribution of illicit drugs – from LSD to crack cocaine – among targeted US communities of politically aware people and in black neighborhoods particularly to psychologically and socially disrupt those impacted.

See ‘Vaccine Industry Watchdog Obtains CDC Documents That Show Statistically Significant Risks of Autism Associated with Vaccine Preservative Thimerosal: Biochemist Brian Hooker, scientific advisor to A Shot of Truth, reveals CDC knew risks for over a decade’ and

‘CIA Conspiracy to Flood Black Communities with Crack Exposed in Explosive Netflix Documentary’. 

Of course, medical mind control is also deployed as one of the weapons used to control victims of torture in which psychiatrists have also long been willingly complicit. See ‘Defeating the Violence of Psychiatry’.

Technological Mind Control

Unfortunately, however, as horrifically effective as long-standing psychological, political and medical mind control measures have been already, there are many new weapons in the arsenals of those intent on controlling our minds. These mind control weapons are technological and, with most of the research driven by the intelligence and military communities within national governments, these efforts have been well funded and made steady progress during the C20^th and advanced rapidly after World War II.

Hence, a human future worth living – which presumably includes a mind capable of conceiving and manifesting individual identity, freedom and free will – now hangs by a thread.

So this means that, in addition to the four points explained in the ‘Rage Against the War Machine’ article cited above, the traditional focus by antiwar activists on the threat posed by wars generally and the threat posed by nuclear weapons particularly is failing to take into account two vital elements of the overall threat: the ancient war on the mind that is now being enhanced by a wide range of technocratic control weapons and, as an extension of this, the manner in which war-fighting is being technocratized to remove humans from the picture altogether.

The latter development which, to reiterate, is an extension of the rapidly advancing mind control, means that we are almost at the point when a transhuman individual suitably placed in the chain of command could be ‘ordered’ by an artificial intelligence (AI) program to launch full-scale nuclear war.

Image is licensed under Wikimedia Commons

Or an AI program could initiate a nuclear launch directly.

See ‘How Might Artificial Intelligence Affect the Risk of Nuclear War?’, ‘Autonomous Nuclear Weapons: Should We Give Control Of America’s Nukes To AI?’,

‘Assessing the Dangers: Emerging Military Technologies and Nuclear (In)Stability’,

‘Never Give Artificial Intelligence the Nuclear Codes’ and

‘AI Versus AI And Human Extinction as Collateral Damage’.

And that is assuming that AI does not induce human extinction directly.

See ‘Statement on AI Risk: AI experts and public figures express their concern about AI risk’. But that is an issue to be explored another time.

Which means that the challenges for both freedom activists and anti-war activists, as well as any ‘ordinary’ human being, are far greater in this rapidly advancing technocratic age than at any previous time in human history.

Let me explain a little more about what is happening but then focus on how it is happening, the challenges it presents and how we can strategically resist these developments, which are a critical component of the Elite program to imprison and enslave those left alive after humanity has been ‘depopulated’ by the various measures being employed to achieve that end.

See ‘We Are Being Smashed Politically, Economically, Medically and Technologically by the Elite’s “Great Reset”: Why? How Do We Fight Back Effectively?’

Building on long-standing techniques to manipulate previously terrorized people into feeling, thinking and doing what they are told, particularly since World War II the Elite has sought technological means of mind control as well.

At its simplest, this has included the use of television as a weapon for mass mind control, which was already happening extensively by the 1960s. In a documentary demonstrating this, the presenters illustrate how a variety of techniques are used to manipulate viewers into holding the views endorsed by those intent on controlling the narrative. How this is done varies and, for example, ranges from the messaging itself – which might be overt or be concealed in such a way that it is only perceived unconsciously – to the rate of flicker which can alter the state of consciousness to make one more receptive to some form of programming.

Watch ‘Ultimate TV Mind Control Documentary’.

Beyond this, however, enormous effort has gone into much more technologically direct forms of mind control.

Most notably, Yale University psychiatrist Dr José M.R. Delgado’s 1969 book Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society carefully documented techniques used in the illegal human experimentation program initiated by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the 1950s which employed many former Nazi and (Italian) fascist scientists. Known as MK-Ultra, the project was designed to develop procedures to manipulate the mind, thus beating Elon Musk’s neuralink chip by a mere 75 years.

See ‘Mind Control is Nothing New’ and watch ‘This Is How Elon Musk’s Neuralink Microchip Will Be Put In Your Brain’.

Nevertheless, and despite the physically invasive nature of his earlier work, Delgado’s later work was done wirelessly, ‘with his most advanced efforts developed without electrode implants used at all’. That is, ‘he achieved the brain manipulating effects at a distance, without any physical contact or devices attached to the living creature being manipulated’. By changing the frequency and waveform on an experimental subject, ‘he could completely change their thinking and emotional state’.

See Angels Don’t Play This HAARP pp.140-141.

Consequently, since the 1950s, a long series of technologies has been or is being developed which enhance the Elite capacity to control our minds in an enormous variety of ways, compromise our health, disable us, alter us genetically or kill us, as they choose. Needless to say, in the United States such efforts have garnered significant CIA and Defense Department support. Here is a sample of more of these technologies.

Image: HAARP antenna grid (By Secoy, A/CC BY 4.0)

Among its other weapons possibilities, researchers Dr Nick Begich and Jeane Manning have explained how the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program – known as HAARP, a joint project of the United States Air Force and Navy based in Alaska and designed to study the ionosphere in order to develop new weapons technology – ‘could be used against humanity in a way that would change what people think, believe and feel.’ See Angels Don’t Play This HAARP p.8.

Citing Michael Hutchison’s 1990 book – see Mega Brain, New Tools and Techniques for Brain growth and Mind Expansion – which described how new technologies were being used to improve learning and memory but also for human behavior modification, Begwich and Manning noted that ‘External stimulation of the brain by electromagnetic means can cause the brain to be entrained or locked into phase with an external signal generator… overriding the normal frequencies causing changes in the brain waves; which then cause changes in brain chemistry; which then cause changes in brain outputs in the form of thoughts, emotions or physical condition…. brain manipulation can be either beneficial or detrimental to the individual being impacted.’

Writing in 2001, Begich and Manning go on to note that ‘The work in this area is advancing at a very rapid rate with new discoveries being made regularly…. Radio frequency radiation, acting as a carrier for extremely low frequencies (ELF), can be used to wirelessly entrain brain waves…. The power level needed to achieve a measure of control over brain activity is very small – from 5 to 200 microamperes – which is thousands of times less than the power needed to run a 60 watt light bulb…. The new tools include electrical cranial stimulation devices, sound systems, light pulse systems and a large variety of other brain entrainment and feedback devices.’

See Angels Don’t Play This HAARP pp.134-135.

Commenting on Hutchison’s 1994 sequel – see Mega Brain Power: Transform Your Life with Mind Machines and Brain Nutrients – which also highlighted the rapidity of developments in the field, Begich and Manning note that Hutchison was using his periodical Megabrain Report: The Psychotechnology Newsletter to discuss ‘technologies for healing nervous system disorders, correcting attention deficit and hyperactive disorders in children and curing drug and alcohol dependencies among other things.’ However, while they claimed that ‘Electromedicine of this type is emerging as one of the most exciting areas of medical research’, they lamented that ‘military research continues to look at these technologies as weapon systems rather than as human potential enhancing tools.’ The book devotes considerable attention to military research in the field that is not classified.

See Angels Don’t Play This HAARP p.135.

In their detailed investigation of the mind control issue, Begich and Manning drew attention to the work of Dr. Patrick Flanagan, ‘one of America’s most gifted inventors’, who was ‘recognized for inventing what was the most advanced brain entrainment device, and possibly human-to-computer interface, on the planet – the Neurophone.’ That was in 1962. Years later, Flanagan noted that the HAARP project could be ‘the biggest brainentrainment device ever conceived’. According to HAARP records, at full power the device can send VLF and ELF waves using many wave forms at energy levels sufficient to affect entire regional populations.

See Angels Don’t Play This HAARP p.136.

But why impact only ‘entire regional populations’?

Building on earlier work he had done investigating the psychophysiological impacts of ELF (extremely low frequency) field waves on living organisms – see ‘Psychophysiological Effects of Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields: A Review’ – in a 1995 paper published in Perceptual and Motor Skills, Professor Michael A. Persinger concluded that ‘Within the last two decades… a potential has emerged which was improbable but which is now marginally feasible. This potential is the technical capability to influence directly the major portion of the approximately six billion brains of the human species through classical sensory modalities by generating neural information within a physical medium within which all members of the species are immersed.’

See ‘On the Possibility of Directly Accessing Every Human Brain by Electromagnetic Induction of Fundamental Algorithms’. And, of course, all human beings are immersed within the medium known as Earth’s atmosphere.

Begich and Manning discuss a range of mind control technologies including ‘brain biofeedback’ – which enables a person to learn how to manipulate their own brain waves, using a computer initially, in profound ways – thus offering the opportunity ‘to take greater control of ourselves through better control of our minds’. At its most benign, this technology has assisted people to reach higher meditative states, helped children suffering from attention deficit disorders and enabled adults to break drug and alcohol dependencies. Unfortunately: ‘It is disturbing to realize that governments are interested in these technologies, not for beneficial individual uses but in order to gain increased control over populations they view as dangerous. These technologies offer both great promise and a high potential for abuse.’ See Angels Don’t Play This HAARP p.138.

If you would like to watch an articulate, straightforward account of the development of some of the early technological methods of mind control, Dr Nick Begwich offers one in about eleven minutes from the 12:45 mark of this video: ‘NWO – The Battle For Your Mind & Body’. But an internet search will reveal a wide range of videos in which Begwich presents his research findings as well as his concerns.

Of course, this concern about how the technology could be deployed is shared by others.

In his own research on the subject, the founder of the ‘International Movement for the Ban of Manipulation of Human Nervous System by Technical Means’, Czech writer Mojmír Babáček concluded his 2004 study with this warning:

One clear consequence of the continuation of the apparent politics of secrecy surrounding technologies enabling remote control of the human brain is that the governments, who own such technologies, could use them without having to consult public opinion. Needless to say, any meaningful democracy in today’s world could be disrupted, through secret and covert operations. It is not inconceivable that in the future, entire population groups subjected to mind control technologies, could be living in a ‘fake democracy’ where their own government or a foreign power could broadly shape their political opinions by means of mind control technologies. See ‘Electromagnetic and Informational Weapons: The Remote Manipulation of the Human Brain’.

Despite Babáček’s well-founded concern and long-standing efforts, research on technological control of the human mind has continued to expand without regulation, with much of this research done in secret, which Babáček has long resisted as well.

See ‘The Ways to Defeat the Secrecy Surrounding the Existence of Mind Control Technology’.

Among other outcomes, this ongoing research meant that, by 2011, the McGovern Institute for Brain Research was able to control the brain using light. Research in this area by several organizations is pursued vigorously and continues to make progress.

See ‘Controlling nerve cells with light opened new ways to study the brain’.

And in 2018, Professor Antoine Jérusalem explained progress made in using sound waves to control the human mind. Describing ‘non-invasive neuromodulation – changing brain activity without the use of surgery’ Jérusalem explains it thus: ‘the principle of non-invasive neuromodulation is to focus ultrasound waves into a region in the brain so that they all gather in a small spot. Then hopefully, given the right set of parameters, this can change the activity of the neurons.’ The aim is to control the neuronal activity without damaging the brain tissue. While keen to acknowledge potential benefits, Jérusalem concedes inherent problems. How dystopian could it get? ‘I can see the day coming where a scientist will be able to control what a person sees in their mind’s eye, by sending the right waves to the right place in their brain.’ He advocates regulation.

See ‘Mind control using sound waves? We ask a scientist how it works’.

Of course, research in the field of technological manipulation of the mind is not confined to the West with countries like China doing considerable research in the field as well. The People’s Liberation Army is considering a variety of psychological warfare technologies ‘that it envisions leveraging for future operations. These include advanced computing, especially big data and information processing; brain science, especially brain imaging; and legacy proposals that remain of interest, including sonic weapons, laser weapons, subliminal messaging, and holograms.’

See ‘Chinese Next-Generation Psychological Warfare: The Military Applications of Emerging Technologies and Implications for the United States’.

As you might have expected, the most recent efforts at technological mind control have included research into the use of nanotechnology. In their research on the subject, Prithiv K. R. Kumar & Albert Alukal explained, with a sequence of images, how nanotechnology could be delivered into a specific part of the brain and what constituents would be required to achieve particular outcomes, including in relation to brain damage repair.

See ‘Control of Mind using Nanotechnology’.

And Tyler Nguyen and colleagues wrote another paper that cites shortcomings in some approaches to ‘brain stimulation’ and goes on to discuss the possibility of using ‘magnetoelectric nanoparticles’ (MENs) which was originally proposed in 2012 but later demonstrated. ‘The nanoparticles can be injected into a vein or via intranasal administration, forced to cross the blood–brain barrier (BBB) and consequently localized to a target region by applying a magnetic field gradient…. The unique properties of MENs, due to their small size (~ 30 nm)… may provide significant improvements over currently used techniques in efficacy and tissue penetration for noninvasive brain stimulation.’

See ‘In Vivo Wireless Brain Stimulation via Non-invasive and Targeted Delivery of Magnetoelectric Nanoparticles’.

But as Ana Maria Mihalcea MD, PhD elaborates her own research in this field, she highlights ‘the capability of the Nanotechnology in the C19 injections as well as the Nanotechnology we inhale via geoengineering chemtrails and food supply to control the human mind.’ She goes on to write: ‘All aspects of human functioning can be altered in the brain without the recipient of the technology knowing it…. Quantum Dots, Carbon Nanotubes (Graphene) and Lipid Nanoparticles creating Hydrogel are all components discussed previously in my posts.’ See the following article and earlier ones accessible below it:

‘“Control of Mind Using Nanotechnology” – 2020 Scientific Paper Explains Complete Thought and Brain Control through Nanotechnology’.

And lest you think that geoengineering nanoparticles can’t be a serious problem, Dane Wigington’s recent interview of an anonymous whistleblowing scientist working in the agricultural sector in the U.S. reveals a program that sprays 40 million tons of nanoparticles onto the Earth’s surface annually. Of course, given the range of functions that nanoparticles can be designed to perform, we can only speculate on the proportion of these nanoparticles sprayed that might be devoted to mind control.

Watch ‘Nanoparticle Contamination Cover-up: Answers from a Scientist’.

But further to her research on nanotechology in human blood and its implications for mind control, Mihalcea has also drawn attention to military research – see ‘Brain-Computer Interfaces: U.S. Military Applications and Implications, An Initial Assessment’ – concerned with exploiting such technologies in conjunction with artificial intelligence: ‘rewriting neuronal function in my vocabulary means total mind control, human enslavement, and ultimately may mean human extinction’.

See ‘Brain Computer Interfaces: US Military Applications and Implications’.

And in the last of her trilogy of books on geoengineering,

Geoengineered Transhumanism: How the Environment Has Been Weaponized by Chemicals, Electromagnetism & Nanotechnology for Synthetic Biology Elana Freeland notes that ‘Millions of “neurograins” collecting and communicating data to remote hubs are now in all human brains…. “Absolute limits” are now about tininess, the micro, nano, pico, and femto of particles whose extraordinary power is disguised as insignificant but actually hands over the keys to the kingdom of remote control over bodies and brains to those who control technology proximate to the subatomic quantum threshold.’

In an interview on the subject, Freeland simply observes: ‘They prepped us for 20 years with what we breathed in [the nanoparticles – mainly metals such as  Barium, Strontium, Aluminum (the worst for humans), Chromium, Lithium… – they dropped on us] and now one of the things that’s going in through the jab [Covid-19 injection] is software and hardware, microprocessors, so that the 5G, 6G systems – and notice I am including 6G I want to make that clear: There is 6G out as well. It’s just that they have not announced it but it’s up and running – … this nanotechnology that I am talking about can run our behaviour, our thoughts, our feelings and our emotions. And I am not talking about the future.’

Watch ‘Slobodni podcast #27 Elana Freeland’.

Given the dangers posed by the capacity of certain technologies to control the human mind, which he continues to oppose to this day –

see ‘Is Mankind Able to Prevent Abuse of New Technologies Against Democracy and Human Rights?’ and

‘Control The Human Brain, Control the World. Neurotechnology and the Ban of Mind Control Weapons: If Democracy Is to Win in This World, the United Nations Must Become Democratic’ – on 18 June 2022 Mojmír Babáček and fellow signatories sent an

‘Open letter to the governments and parliaments of the world to create legislation to protect people’s brains and bodies against attacks by neurotechnologies’ and in May 2023 Babáček challenged national governments around the world to follow the example set by the Chilean government, which adopted a law in 2021 guaranteeing Chilean citizens ‘the rights to personal identity, free will and mental privacy’ and ‘prove that they are not planning to transform their states into totalitarian states where the elite turn citizens into bio-robots, controlled by supercomputers.’

See ‘People’s Brains and Bodies Are Not Protected Against Attacks by Electromagnetic Waves and Neurotechnologies: The sixth generation of cell phone telephony plans to connect human brains to the internet’.

As much as I appreciate Babáček’s long-standing efforts, there is no prospect of this happening given Elite plans to control the mind of every individual living.

Hence, we must resist it ourselves.

Strategically Resisting

Efforts to Control Our Minds

Elite efforts to control our minds are long-standing, multifaceted and sophisticated although most trigger people’s (unconscious) fear as a basic component of their efforts.

Terrorized during childhood into submissive obedience to authority, bamboozled by a staggering array of mind control techniques and technologies of which there is almost zero public awareness, entranced by the latest technological gadget while reassured by the delusional promise of greater ‘privacy, security and convenience’, only a rare human is perceiving how these individual components are just parts in an overarching program that is progressively drawing us into a trap which will render those of us left alive into transhuman slaves within the technocratic walls of the Elite’s ‘smart’ cities.

Thus, for example, the vast number of people who accept payment to do Elite bidding – including those working in the public relations, propaganda, censorship and technological mind control industries – have clearly been terrorized out of their moral autonomy and, hence, are incapable of perceiving and acting in concert with the general human interest.

But most people are already so entrapped by a combination of Elite measures that there is no realistic prospect, in the timeframe available, of helping them to escape Elite influence sufficiently to survive the current range of threats to their identity, privacy, security, freedom and life by resisting these threats effectively.

Unfortunately, this includes most people who were able to perceive the delusions presented to us in relation to the ‘virus’, injectables and the various mandates.

Thus, the number of people capable of resisting effectively (that is, strategically) the foundational components of the Elite program is relatively few.

But if you regard yourself as one of these individuals, then here are the key things you need to be doing to maximize the prospects of your children having minds of their own and to defend a future worth living.

Consider making ‘My Promise to Children’. To be able to make this commitment, you might need to spend some time becoming more aware of your own emotional Self.

See ‘Putting Feelings First’.

To fulfill your promise to children, you will certainly need to be able to listen, deeply, to them – see ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’ –

and to understand the hazards of the existing education system. See ‘Do We Want School or Education?’

Tragically, we are at a point in human history when the obstacles to retaining autonomy over one’s mind are enormous. But how a child is parented is the most crucial variable in the ultimate outcome for the individual.

And if you have retained sufficient control over you own mind, then you will know, intuitively if not intellectually, that resisting the Elite’s complex and sophisticated program is going to require considerable effort both by you as an individual and by those we can mobilize to respond powerfully too. And this will not include lobbying or petitioning Elite agents.

See ‘The Elite Coup to Kill or Enslave Us: Why Can’t Governments, Legal Actions and Protests Stop Them?’

In essence, this means that your resistance to the Elite program must be strategic. If it is not, Elite insanity will ensure that sufficient and, if necessary, overwhelming violence will be inflicted on us to compel compliance with their will.

See ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

So if you are committed to being strategic in your resistance to the ‘Great Reset’ and its related agendas, you are welcome to participate in the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ campaign which identifies a list of 30 strategic goals for doing so.

More simply, and as a minimum, you can download the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ one-page flyer that identifies a short series of crucial nonviolent actions that anyone can take. This flyer, now available in 23 languages (Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Malay, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Slovak and Turkish) with more languages in the pipeline, can be downloaded from here: ‘One-page Flyer’.

You are also welcome to consider sharing the article ‘Policing the Elite’s Technocracy: How Do We Resist This Effectively?’ with your local police. Resistance by police will be vital to the success of our resistance efforts.

And you might also consider organizing or participating in a local strategy to halt the deployment of 5G, given its crucial role in making the Elite’s ‘smart city’ technocratic prisons function. See ‘Halting the Deployment of 5G’.

If you like, you can also watch, share and/or organize to show, a short video about the campaign here: ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ video.

Moreover, if this strategic resistance to the ‘Great Reset’ (and related agendas) appeals to you, consider joining the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ Telegram or Signal groups (with links accessible from the website).

Conclusion

Most humans laud the idea of ‘a free society’ and’ freedom of the individual’ but don’t even realise that what we most need is freedom of the mind. We pay lip service to the rights to freedom of thought, expression and conscience but lack the powerful mind necessary to meaningfully exercise these rights, often settling for superficial symbols of ‘freedom’ such as the right to choose the form of our employment, how we spend our spare time, the sporting team we support, and the style and color of our hair and clothing.

The reality is that we are terrorized throughout childhood into submissive obedience to authority leaving us highly vulnerable to the comprehensive range of psychological, political, medical and technological weapons directed against our minds. In this circumstance, identifying the truth about what is really happening in the world is a challenge far too great for most people.

Moreover, in the situation we now face, even among those who have been able to perceive the most obvious delusions being presented to them, the bulk of these individuals have proven incapable of doing little more than complaining powerlessly, begging an Elite agent to ‘go easy’ on them (by lobbying or petitioning a government or international organization such as the World Health Organization), cross-posting the latest irrelevant post from one social media platform to another, possibly advocating unspecified ‘resistance’ (or strategically irrelevant action), or attending a protest demonstration.

Seeking out and applying strategic means of resistance to the overall Elite program – the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’ with its fourth industrial revolution (technocratic), eugenicist and transhumanist components – or recognizing it when offered, has remained beyond them.

Hence, any candid assessment of the evidence presented above leads to one conclusion: The Elite war on human minds is now so advanced and effective that death or transhuman slavery for everyone on Planet Earth is virtually inevitable.

As Steve Biko noted all those years ago: ‘The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.’

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

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 regular contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Australian Voters Continue to be Disturbed by So Much Moral Blindness

For the past six years, Ron Morgan Research has been investigating consumers’ use and views of web browsers and search engines, while asking more than 2,000 Australian’s every month questions pertaining to geo-political issues and such things as which brands, products and companies they trust or distrust the most.

The results have shown that Australians have never been more distrusting of Corporate Australia than they are in 2023. Their research has revealed that, since the onset of COVID, Australians are angry and distrustful of, among many things, companies like PwC, Optus, Telstra, Medibank, Facebook, Meta, Harvey Norman since its ‘Job Keeper Scandal’, even Quantas has fallen from one of the countries most trusted brands to one of its most distrusted. But especially the monster mining enterprise Rio Tinto since its wilful, malicious  destruction, in 2020 in Western Australia, of the Juunkan Gorge’s Aboriginal World Heritage site. Yet, in a matter of minutes, this 40,000 year-old precious shelf of seminal Aboriginal rock art, as a gift to all of humanity, was blasted into smithereens, just so Rio Tinto’s mining executives could access a mere $135 million dollars worth of iron ore. Which brings the tensions front and centre to 2023; what with one of Australia’s now most contentious referendums ever held between First Nation Aboriginal peoples, Torres Strait Islanders and the descendants of Australia’s early settler colonist peoples.

What the Yes Versus No Voice in Parliament Are Saying

An Australia-wide ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ referendum is to be held on the inherent rights of the original Aboriginal people, and Torres Strait Islanders, after over two centuries of being muzzled, to finally have ‘A Voice in Parliament’; ‘Their Voice in Parliament’.

A map of the Torres Strait Islands. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

But Yes and No campaigns, drafted by parliamentarians on both sides of this divisive question, have since established blistering yay or nay arguments that since have been published on the Australian Electorate Commission’s website. Australian Electoral Commission (aec.gov.au)

What follows is this writer’s attempt, as one who has been married to an Aussie for nearly five decades, and lived in and passionately loved that dry and brown land, its peoples and ancient, ever-evolving heritage, to try to make some sense out of it all.

Whatever voter pamphlets are yet be distributed or posted, hopefully, they will shed more light on some of the ‘facts’ than this writer has so far been able to discern.

Some critics of the referendum process contend that the vote is flawed for two reasons. First of all, apparently, by the fact that the Australian Labor Government, who currently holds power, hasn’t yet distributed to the electorate voter a pamphlet that is strictly focused on just the ‘Facts’ about what the legalization, if codified, will henceforth mean to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, as well as every other non-aboriginal Australian. Secondly, that the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ positions be published in entirely separate, unedited and unformatted documents, exactly as they have been received. Thirdly, regarding the ‘No’ Vote on a Voice in Parliament, there must be a clearly stated clarification of claims that have been made about the nation’s National Indigenous Australian’s Agency, as well as a clearer definition of what any future treaty made between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples would mean, and whether or not a constitutional convention will precede any constitutional changes yet to be made.

Constitutional Recognition Overseas

Other nations, with similar settler-colonial histories, like Canada, New Zealand and the United States, formally recognized their own First Nations decades ago.

FACT – In 2017, the then Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, accurately stated, The Australian Constitution is the only constitution of a First World Nation with a colonial history that does not recognize its first peoples.”

The Canadian Constitution was altered to specifically name the “aboriginal peoples of Canada – the Indian, Inuit and Metis people -, while affixing their existing treaty rights and guarantees that the rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or deregulate from any aboriginal treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Furthermore, that any changes yet to be made to relevant sections of Canada’s constitution would have to be made in consultation with representatives of those aboriginal peoples.

FACT – Though New Zealand has no single constitution, it is considered to be a constitutional monarchy which has “constitutional practices” that recognize its Maori people in the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 between the British and various Maori chiefs.

FACT – In the United States, aboriginal people are referred to in the U.S. Constitution, since 1789, for the purpose of trade and commerce, which legal experts agree is a formal recognition of their rights. Though the U.S. Constitution only mentions ‘Indian Tribes’, as it empowers the Federal Government to regulate commerce with them, legal experts agree it establishes the importance of its aboriginal peoples and their places which became the USA.

A Voice in Parliament Is Step One Towards Future Treaty’s and Truth-telling

FACT – Treaties between Settler-Colonial Governments and Aboriginal Peoples already have been successfully negotiated elsewhere. In Canada, for example, the government has signed 26 such treaties since 1975 (and another 70 between 1701 and 1923)

FACT – The ‘No’ Vote pamphlet, as it reads, incorrectly suggests that any treaty between Aboriginal peoples and the Australian Government would be “merely an agreement between one group of Australian citizens and the Government.”

FACT –By the fact that the Australian Government already is a signatory to the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Australian Government already has recognized that “Indigenous Australians are members of their own nation, and the Australian Nation.” This dual recognition is key to any Indigenous-State Treaty that the ‘No’ pamphlet discounts. Consistent with the UN Declaration, a treaty can be made, say, between Australia’s Wurundjeri people and the State of Victoria, with the Wurundjeri represented by their own governance body.

FACT – The same treaty negotiation process between Australia’s State government with their First Nation peoples could be negotiated throughout the entire nation’s other states.

National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA)

FACT- The ‘No’ Vote attempts to discredit the ‘Yes’ Vote by arguing there already exists hundreds of indigenous bodies at all levels of government, such as the NIAA, with its huge 1400 member staff, as an example of just one more bureaucracy and not the answer.

FACT – The NIAA is staffed by public servants with the Departments of the PM and his Cabinet, and not an independent body in the same way that A Voice To Parliament’ would be.

FACT – The NIAA is not an entirely indigenous organization, with only 22% of the staff identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islanders.

Closing the Gap

FACT – The ‘Yes’ Voice in Parliament seeks to argue for the need to severely ’close the gap’ between Australia’s Aboriginal peoples and the descendants of its Settler-Colonial’ peoples

FACT- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have a life expectancy 8 years shorter than non-indigenous Australians; a worse rate of disease, infant mortality, and; a suicide rated twice as high as it is for non-indigenous Australians

FACT- Within the 19 socio-economic targets of Australia’s National Agreement on Closing The Gap to measure progress in life outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders aren’t to be found among the four targets on track to be met by the government.

1967 Referendum

FACT – A constitutionally-enshrined ‘Voice to Parliament’ would unite Australians, 90% of whom, in 1967, voted ‘Yes’ to change the constitution so that Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander people would be counted in the population in the same way as everyone else.

FACT- The ‘Yes Vote To a Voice in Parliament’ proposes to remove from the Australian Constitution the words that declare Parliament shall have the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with regard to the people of any race, or that prohibits Australia’s Commonwealth government from excluding First Nation Australia from the official population count.

FACT – The ‘No’ Vote for a Voice in Parliament falsely claims that the current referendum has received less scrutiny than previous attempts to change the constitution. Yet the ‘Yes’ Vote for a Voice in Parliament clearly points out that the intense scrutiny that preceded the 2017 First Nations National Convention produced The Uluru Statement From the Heart, that called for a constitutionally-enshrined Voice to Parliament.

These are but a few of the facts that should be considered in deciding whether or not a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’ vote should be considered paramount in this all-important referendum. The future of Australia and a great deal more hangs in the balance. Consider the below sources of what all is entailed in the vote. Let world opinion weigh into the outcome.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

The writer Jerome Irwin is a Canadian-American writer who originally was a Criminology student working in one of America’s local police departments. For decades, Irwin has sought to call world attention to problems of environmental degradation and unsustainability caused by a host of environmental-ecological-spiritual issues that exist between the conflicting world philosophies of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples.

Irwin is the author of the book, “The Wild Gentle Ones; A Turtle Island Odyssey” (www.turtle-island-odyssey.com), a spiritual odyssey among the native peoples of North America that has led to numerous articles pertaining to: Ireland’s Fenian Movement; native peoples Dakota Access Pipeline Resistance Movement; AIPAC, Israel & the U.S. Congress anti-BDS Movement; the historic Battle for Palestine & Siege of Gaza, as well as; the many violations constantly being waged by industrial-corporate-military-propaganda interests against the World’s Collective Soul. The author and his wife are long-time residents on the North Shore of British Columbia.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Vladivostok, located in Russia’s Far East, hosted the 8th Eastern Economic Forum (EEF), on 10th to 13th September 2023, in an attempt to define further the development of this remote region. Since the introduction of the EEF in 2015, until the Covid-19 that was followed by Russia’s own ‘special military operation’ in neighbouring Ukraine, has largely focused on harnessing resources from Asia-Pacific, the United States and Europe to the Far East region of the Russian Federation.

Speeches and all kinds of remarks highly praised Western, European and Asia-Pacific participating countries and corporate enterprises, under resonating themes such as ‘A Common Economic Space from the Atlantic to the Pacific: The Greater Eurasian Partnership’ which was framed to develop trade and economic cooperation from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Research shows that the EEF held previously, especially the first three in 2015 to 2018, strategically aimed at broadening international cooperation, and promoting Far East as the gateway to the Asian-Pacific region. 

Despite the series of sanctions, corporate European businesses are still highly interested in Russia and Russia recognizes the enormous significance and invaluable contributions of these businesses in its economy. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, during those hay years, had always been the guest speaker during the Association of European Business (AEB), an organization which unites European companies in the Russian Federation.

“We value opportunities for dialogue with European entrepreneurs aimed at pushing forward a pragmatic, politics-free and mutually beneficial agenda designed to improve the wellbeing of the people in Russia,” Lavrov said, and rained a lot of praises when the AEB marked its 25th year early October 2020.

The interest in strengthening and diversifying trade and economic ties had grown since Soviet collapse. According to statistics, the European Union investment in Russia reached almost US$300 billion back in 2019.

Russia is ready to build its relations with the European Union along some principles. The European Union remains as its important trade partner. As before, there is optimism that both are open to cooperation, European partners are keen on building businesses in the economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok, this vast country and in the Eurasian region.

Obviously, the future Russia and European business relations could still be consolidated despite the current political differences. After all, Russia and the EU countries not only belong to the same cultural and civilizational matrix, but are also linked by many ties in trade and investment cooperation, scientific and technological exchange and personal contacts. More and more Russians spend their vacation in Europe. There are visible signs that Europeans are interested in Far East development projects and participating in diverse spheres in the economy there.

Even long before Covid-19, Russia continued working on attracting investment to the Far East from external countrues and enterprises. Outcomes of 2019 forum (that was the 5th forum) released by the forum organizers, for instance, showed that among the 65 countries represented were Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden and the United States. 

The 2019 forum business dialogues included ‘Russia-Europe’ among the six for that year. And one of the expert business lectures was United Kingdom on economics and international relations. The session was moderated Sergei Brilev, Russia TV Channel Anchor and Deputy Director and President of the Bering Bellingshausen Institute for the Americas. And there at the session, Vladimir Putin acknowledged hosting over 8,500 participants from 65 countries. Since the first forum, representation had increased more than twofold, a convincing indication of growing colossal interest in opportunities offered by the Russian Far East.

Prime Minister of Japan Shinzō Abe:

“I want you to spread the wings of imagination and see the new opportunities Japan can bring into your future. Let us create history together, let us pave the way.” 

Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Bin Mohamad:

“It was great to hear that of all regions, Russia is going to develop the Far East. Russia is one of the few countries that is located both in Europe and in Asia. Its unique geographical location makes it a bridge between East and West, between Europe and Asia. I suppose this unique situation will help Russia play an in important role in both Europe and the Far East.”

“We are still going to aim high. At the same time, if prior to the first EEF five years ago you would have asked me to guess the future – I don’t think I would have said 1800 projects. Perhaps, I would have been ambitious enough to guess 300, and I would have thought that daring. 1800 projects launched in the Far East – it is simply amazing. I am confident: the preferential economic policy, initiated at the behest of the President of the Russian Federation works,” said Yuri Trutnev, Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Presidential Plenipotentiary Envoy to the Far Eastern Federal District. 

“The 5th anniversary Eastern Economic Forum was record-breaking in terms of participation numbers and the total worth of contracts signed during the event. These accomplishments prove that the Forum became a significant platform to promote international cooperation and discuss relevant global and regional economic issues,” said Anton Kobyakov, Advisor to the President of the Russian Federation, Executive Secretary of the Eastern Economic Forum Organizing Committee.

Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad, President of Russia Vladimir Putin joined the 2019 Eastern Economic Forum (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

Over the past few years, brief analytical summaries show an increasing trade relations between Russia and China. In particular, and from geopolitical point of view, China is moving towards attaining its global status within the evolutionary processes of multipolarity. China is building on its potential facilities and institutional tools to penetrate through the Far East to central Asia and former Soviet republics.

That however, with the complexities and contradictions of the geopolitical situation, Russia has abandoned its initial post-Soviet Western and European dreams. United States, Europe and the Baltics were all deleted from Russia’s radar. Russia is partitioning rather than pursuing an integrative multipolar world. At least, these are visible within the framework of its foreign policy.

Outcomes of the 4th EEF (September 2018) held under the theme ‘The Far East: Expanding the Range of Possibilities’ was significantly not different. It featured the President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping, President of Mongolia Khaltmaagiin Battulga, Prime Minister of Japan Shinzō Abe, Prime Minister of the Republic of Korea Lee Nak-yon. 

President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping emphasized:

“The Eastern Economic Forum, established by the initiative of President Putin, has already been successfully held three times and has become an important platform for consolidating brainpower and discussing key cooperation-related matters. This year the Forum is attended by an unprecedented number of guests and friends from different countries.”

President of Mongolia Khaltmaagiin Battulga said:

“The Annual Eastern Economic Forum is becoming an important discussion platform for outlining further ways of cooperation for the APR countries. Each year the level of participants is rising, and the Forum is expanding.” 

Prime Minister of Japan Shinzō Abe:

“Russian–Japanese relations are now going through a breakthrough period with unprecedented acceleration. The plan of bilateral cooperation that we discussed with President Putin includes over 150 projects. Over a half of them are already being implemented or are approaching this stage.”

Prime Minister of the Republic of Korea Lee Nak-yeon said:

“Leaders of the Northeast Asian states have gathered at this platform to consolidate efforts and ideas for the development of the Far East and ensure peace and well-being for the region. This is crucial.”

Over 340 heads of foreign businesses took part in the forum. There were 6,002 delegates and 220 agreements worth 3.108 billion roubles were signed (only agreements, the value of which does not constitute a commercial secret). The most significant agreements were:

• Baimskaya Mining Company, KAZ Minerals PLC, Government of Chukotka Autonomous Area and the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia signed an agreement in the amount of 360 billion roubles on the implementation of the investment project to develop the Baimskaya ore zone (Chukotka Autonomous Area);
• United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) and Aeroflot signed an agreement in the amount of 210 billion roubles on the consignment of Sukhoi Superjet 100 aircrafts;
• Nakhodka Fertilizer Plant and Far East Development Corporation signed an agreement to create a clean methanol and ammonia production facility;
• NOVATEK, Government of Kamchatka Territory and Ministry for the Development of the Russian Far East signed an agreement in the amount of 69.5 billion roubles on the construction of a terminal for transshipment and storage of liquefied natural gas;
• Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), Japanese conglomerate Marubeni Corporation and AEON corporation signed an agreement on the terms for financing the construction of a chemical cluster in Volgograd;
• The Russian Direct Investment Fund, Alibaba Group, MegaFon and Mail.Ru Group announced a new strategic partnership to integrate Russia’s key consumer internet and e-commerce platforms and launch a leading social commerce joint venture in Russia and the CIS
• Leonid Petukhov, CEO of the Far East Investment and Export Agency, and Yoichi Nishikawa, CEO of Iida Group, signed an agreement in the amount of 14.960 billion roubles on cooperation in the implementation of the project for the construction of a wood processing complex for the production of sawn timber for wooden model houses, as well as the construction and sale of wooden low-rise houses; 
• Aysen Nikolayev, Acting Head of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), and Yuri Korotaev, CEO of Duracell Russia, signed the agreement in the amount of 15 billion roubles on interaction in the area of social and economic development of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia);
• Dmitry Kobylkin, Minister of Natural Resources and Environment of Russia, and Yuri Korotaev, CEO of Duracell Russia, signed an agreement on mutually beneficial cooperation in the establishment of a new class 2 waste management system;
• Rosneft and Beijing Gas Group Co. Ltd. signed an agreement to secure the essential conditions for the establishment of a joint venture for the construction and operation of a network of gas filling compressor stations (CNGS) in Russia;
• Gazprom and Mitsui & Co. Ltd. signed a memorandum of understanding on the Baltic LNG project, in order to consider the opportunities for cooperation in the project;
• Far East Development Corporation and Rostelecom PJSC signed an agreement on connecting the 18 advanced special economic zones in the Far East to fiber-optic communication lines;
• Novatek and Rosatomflot signed an agreement on the intention to jointly develop and build an icebreaker fleet operating on LNG.

The 6th Eastern Economic Forum (2021) held at the time when restrictions were still in place due to the risk posed by the coronavirus. This, of course, affected the number of participants at the event. Nevertheless, more than 4,000 participants, including more than 400 heads of companies. Western and Europeans disappeared from the forum. Online guest speakers included President of the Republic of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and President of Mongolia Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh. There were also video greetings by President of China Xi Jinping, Prime Minister of the Republic of India Narendra Modi, and Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Thailand Prayuth Chan-o-cha.

In addition to the usual discussion on Far East, there was on the agenda the Greater Eurasian Partnership. A range of topics came under the spotlight, including the values of young people from the Far East, obstacles encountered by young entrepreneurs, the education system, the impact of social media, the future of the financial market, copyright, raising investment, getting young people involved in developing the urban environment, career guidance, cooperation with young people in other countries, and the adaptation of the tourist industry.

But a record 380 agreements were signed worth a total of RUB 3.6 trillion, (excluding agreements where the figures were classified as commercial secrets), according to the official documents. Twenty-four of these were signed with foreign and international companies, ministries, and government bodies, including nine with China, six with Japan, three with Kazakhstan, and one each with Austria, Vietnam, Canada, Serbia, South Korea, and Ethiopia.

Quite recently, the 7th Eastern Economic Forum concluded also in September 2022. With the major challenges that Russia is facing from sanctions, the macro-region’s importance is growing rapidly. Russian President Vladimir Putin noted that enormous contribution to building business ties between Russia and the countries of the Asia-Pacific region. He remarked that “there is already a trend of the Asia-Pacific region becoming a centre of world economic activity, along with the gradual extinction of industrial centres in Europe and the United States.”

It was the first post-COVID forum and was attended by more than 7,000 guests, according the forum documents. Despite the sanctions and external pressure, 2,729 investment projects are being implemented in the Far East. More than 290 agreements were signed for a total of RUB 3.27 trillion, including agreements on infrastructure and transport projects, the development of large mineral deposits, as well as construction, industry, and agriculture. More than 7,000 participants from 68 countries and Russia’s territories, including 1,700 business representatives from 700 companies. Western and Europeans disappeared at the 2022 forum. Asian countries have become new centres of economic and technological growth and points of attraction for human resources, capital and industries.

Adviser to the Russian President and Executive Secretary of the EEF 2022 Organizing Committee, Anton Kobyakov, remarked that “Vladivostok could become Russia’s international tourist gateway to the Asia-Pacific region. Let foreign tourists come and bring their relatives and friends.” But the new opportunities mean work needs to be intensified with only friendly countries.

Under the theme “The Path to Partnership, Peace and Prosperity” for the year 2023, Southeast Asian business community, in particular, expressed an active interest in Russian projects and a readiness not only to talk but also to take concrete action, according to Business & Financial newspaper Izvestia. 

“The main issue is agreements on cooperation, technological interaction and the creation of joint ventures. And one thing is certain: The Far East becomes the primary location for potential developments and availability of multiple opportunities,” Georgy Ostapkovich, Director of the Center for Market Studies at the Higher School of Economics (HSE University), noted. He emphasized that it is currently difficult to quantify the number and value of contracts signed at the event. Analysts had predicted that the number of contracts inked at EEF-2023 would be the same as last year, which came in at around 3.2 trln rubles (US$33.08 bln).

Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the opening session that the government would not allow the pace of development to slacken in the Russian Far East as it is a strategic region for the country.

“We will definitely not be scaling down the pace of development in the region because the development of the Far East is an absolute priority for Russia, a direct priority for Russia as a whole for the entire 21st century, because it is a colossal region with a small population but huge potential. Of course, this is a strategic interest for the country,” the president said at the Eastern Economic Forum, which Vladivostok hosted on September 10-13.

The Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) is held annually in cooperation with the Far East regional administration in the city of Vladivostok. Three years of COVID-19, followed by Russia’s ‘special military operation’ and the current geopolitical situation, have not affected this corporate business event, as Russia looks towards the East and makes the main focus on developing the Far East. One of the crucial elements or components, which is missing to see the most essential results since its launch in 2015. 

For the past few years, Western and European businesses have largely been missing in this forum. And those from Asia and the Pacific are getting used to the EEF format as speeches have the same message relating to world geopolitics. Analysts, expressing much concern, say business people are really looking for corporate business opportunities, not hard geopolitics. From the perspective of investors, the region is of serious interest, but there is an imbalance between practical investment and economic potentials in the region.

Many of the speakers were very frank and objective in their speeches, highlighted possible ways for modernizing the region. It is equally important to highlight concrete success stories. In other words, reshaping and scaling up efforts are necessary leading to cutting the white ribbons marking the completion of projects. The Eastern Economic Forum was established by decree of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin in 2015 to support the economic development of Russia’s Far East and to expand international cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region. 

Given the vast territory of the Far East, 6.3 million people translates to slightly less than one person per square kilometer, making the Far East one of the most sparsely populated areas in the world. Until 2000, the Russian Far East lacked officially-defined boundaries. A single term “Siberia and the Far East” often referred to Russia’s regions east of the Urals without drawing a clear distinction between “Siberia” and “the Far East”. That however, the Far East is generally considered as the easternmost territory of Russia, between Lake Baikal in Eastern Siberia and the Pacific Ocean.

* 

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), Weekly Blitz and InDepthNews, is now a regular contributor to Global Research. He researches Eurasia, Russia, Africa and BRICS. His focused interest areas include geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development questions relating to Africa. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on April 9, 2023

***

France24, Quartz, and the Wall Street Journal (paywall-free link) report that the EU abandoned its much-ballyhooed transition to electric cars, which was supposed to culminate with a total ban on gasoline cars in 2035.

 

The EU’s reversal allows “the sales of new cars with combustion engines that run on synthetic fuels,” which sounds very environmentally friendly. But synthetic fuels are similar to gasoline or diesel, so the decision allows internal combustion cars to continue being produced. While electric cars will still be produced and incentivized, there is no longer a 100% mandate by 2035.

This transition was announced with a lot of pomp:

The transition was supposed to go on for 13 years after its announcement in 2022 but was abandoned only a year after its adoption. What happened?

Prodded by climate activists, the EU was pressured to ban fossil fuel vehicles and replace them with battery-powered vehicles. The problem is that such a transition is impossible:

• Transitioning to electric passenger vehicles will increase electricity demand by 25%.
• Transitioning to electric trucks will further raise electricity demand to a total of 40% increase.
• EU is phasing out fossil fuel generation and replacing it with unreliable solar and wind generation – thus decreasing power availability instead of increasing it to meet greater demand.
• As cars and especially trucks are charged at night, solar and wind power cannot contribute to charging.

Are electric cars more efficient?

Running a gasoline car involves:

• Burning gas in the internal combustion engine and converting thermal energy to mechanical energy. That’s it.

Charging an electric car’s battery from the grid and driving the car involves:

• Burning gas at the power station and converting thermal energy of gas to mechanical energy of the gas turbine. This is only moderately more efficient in a power station than gasoline cars.
• Then, losses begin:
• Converting the mechanical energy of the turbine into electrical energy in the generator involves generator losses
• Converting medium voltage from the generator into high transmission voltage involves transformer losses
• Transmitting the power along the high voltage lines involves transmission losses
• Stepping down the voltage in several substations involves transformer losses again
• In a home charging station, converting 220v power into DC for car charging again involves conversion losses
• A chemical process in the battery being charged heats the battery, involving charging losses
• Running the car’s electrical motors from the battery requires inverter losses to generate electricity for traction motors and motor losses.

Take a look at what happens when a driver needs heat in the cab:

• Heating a gasoline car in winter involves redirecting waste heat (hot antifreeze) from the engine into the cab heater, thus not requiring additional fuel.
• Heating an electric car requires a resistance heater or a heat pump, needing to eventually consume more energy from the grid – with all the above conversion losses included.

Which process (gasoline car vs. electric) is more efficient at converting fuel, burnt directly in the car engine or at distant power stations, into usable energy to propel a car traveling on a highway? The gas engines win outright.

The situation would be different if we had a clean, weather-independent, and inexpensive electrical power source. But, alas, we do not have that yet.

Last December, eugyppius wrote a nice post about Switzerland banning electric cars due to a lack of electricity to charge them.

The fact that a pompously announced thirteen-year “electric car transition” was canceled only one year after it was adopted strongly suggests that the original idea was untenably stupid.

The Stupidity of the “CO2 Transition”

As I mentioned above, a 13-year policy canceled in its second year surely is stupid, almost by definition. However, the EU is not alone. California and New York, the bastions of virtue-signaling climate activism, are still going full speed ahead, banning gasoline cars while phasing out fossil fuel generation and doing nothing for nuclear power.

This so-called transition will make much money for the movers and shakers but is technologically unfeasible due to the lack of cheap, carbon-neutral baseload energy (baseload means not depending on weather).

The best outcome would be to see such plans canceled under the pretense of “unforeseen circumstances,” like it just happened in the EU.

The worse outcome would be our collective inability to have enough energy to heat our homes and drive cars. That would necessitate living in cramped “15-minute cities” that are being proposed everywhere.

We Are Responsible For Our Planet

I want to share a thought that many people may disagree with. Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.

• Social experiments like banning gasoline cars and simultaneously killing reliable power generation are dangerous; most readers of this substack would agree.
• Geoengineering experiments such as darkening the skies by spewing millions of tons of sulfur dioxide are dangerous. Most readers of this substack would agree with that as well.
• But emitting billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly is also a potentially dangerous geoengineering experiment.

The climate change field is full of crooks and is directed by those who recently gave us a non-working and dangerous Covid vaccine.

I do not believe them or their paid scientists any more than I believe the dishonest “Covid science.”

However, even though I do not believe those people, I have a concern and a feeling of responsibility for our planet.

We only have one planet. So we better be careful with it.

Somehow or other, honest humans need to band together and reach a better understanding of climate and the Earth.

At the same time, if a fraction of the billions of dollars wasted on electric cars and climate grandstanding were spent on nuclear fusion, we’d possibly have a clean, safe, and limitless energy source much sooner.

What do you think?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from the author

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) constitute a buoyant $5.3 Billion dollar business (2022) which is slated to increase to $12.9 Billon dollars by 2027. This profit-driven military-industrial market is dominated by six “Defense Contractors” including Raytheon, Northrup Grunman, BAE Systems (plc), Boeing, Lockheed Martin and L3Harris Technologies.

According to Raytheon:

 “The development of directed energy (DE) technology is used to counter the drone threat”. 

There are several sophisticated Directed Energy Weapons technologies: High Energy Laser (Hel), High Power Radio Frequency Weapons, Sonic Weapons, Electromagnetic Weapons. (For details see Table below entitled Directed Energy Market Highlights).

While DEWs are largely intended for military use, so-called “non lethal” and/or “less lethal” Directed Energy Weapons are also envisaged for so-called “Homeland Security applications” (See table below).

The Evidence: Were Directed Energy Weapons Used in Hawaii?

Images confirm the extent and nature of devastation and destruction. (see videos below). 

They also suggest that the damage incurred was not attributable to “natural causes”. 

The evidence suggests that Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) may have been used (yet to be fully ascertained) and that the acts of destruction were deliberate.

Video: Houses are Targeted? Green Trees Remain Untouched

Watch below an aerial footage. The location of this Wildfire remains to be confirmed. It may have been in Southern Oregon. [August 19, 2023]

How is it possible to have totally burned down houses in between undamaged trees?

 

Burned out houses between green trees? pic.twitter.com/j8OfYh7Oad

— David Wolfe (@DavidWolfe) August 16, 2023

Video: “Intentional Destruction”?

 

Note the above CBS report points to “A Wildfire Disaster”.

Thousands of families have lost their homes, burnt to the ground. The devastating impacts resulting from possible DEW attacks are not mentioned.

Entire buildings including homes and businesses razed completely to the ground.

It would appear that the buildings were targeted. Several of the surrounding wooden fences within proximity of the razed houses remain intact. 

 

The official statements point to “Natural Causes”: 

“Can you imagine calling up a family that has just seen their home burn to the ground and offering to buy their land for below market value?

This is apparently happening in Hawaii right now on a massive scale.”  Michael Snyder, (August 17, 2023)

***

Among the six private companies of the military industrial complex, Raytheon and BAE Systems are also involved in ENMOD technologies on behalf of the U.S. Air Force. 

There is a flourishing international market. DEWs are exported Worldwide. There are various technologies including Electromagnetic weapons. 

The usage for so-called “Homeland Security applications” includes “non-lethal” civilian applications including Airport protection, riot controls, protection of infrastructure (see below). 

A Citizens’ Criminal Investigation?

Are these so-called “non-lethal or “less lethal” DEWs available for acquisition or purchase by private sector and/or governmental entities? Are sales and non-lethal usage of DEWS subject to regulation?

According to MarketandMarkets.com, non military “non-lethal” applications constitute more than 41.2% of the North American market:

“Rising demand for laser weapons for security across land, air, and sea, new development of directed energy weapons, and the adoption of non-lethal weapons are driving the market growth.

A citizens’ investigation is required to establish what is behind this devastating process of destruction in Hawaii and in various  parts of America.  

Our thoughts today are with the people of Hawaii. 

Below is an examination of the Directed Energy Weapons Market by: 

Marketandmarkets.com

click image below to access the complete document

---

---

 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This important article by Peter Koenig was first published on February 9, 2023, in the immediate wake of the earthquake. It was updated on February 22, 2023, following the testimony of Serdar Hussein and on September 16, 2023 in relation to  recent extreme climatic events including the earthquake in Morocco, the floods in Libya, the wildfires in Hawaii.  

Author’s Introductory Note

While there is no absolute proof that the 6 February 2023 (7.8 Richter) earthquake was manmade, caused by ENMOD / HAARP technologies (Environmental Modification / High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program), more than circumstantial evidence is growing that we are living in a geoengineering war – where weather and climate are manipulated by highly sophisticated technologies – which are also able to create earthquakes – and are presented as “climate change”. 

The recent – 8 September 2023 – seism (6.8) – in Morocco has characteristics similar to the ones of the February 2023 Turkey quake.

In addition, for those who are still believing the CO2-manmade “climate change” narrative, please consider the extreme weather conditions, the historic September monster-floods killing thousands of people in Libya, a country destroyed in 2011 by France, US, and NATO – which also lynched their leader, Muammar Gaddafi, who wanted to free Africa from the French, UK, and US predators, with a common African currency, the Gold Dinar.

Also look at extreme heatwaves in China in July 2023, followed by extreme flooding, never recorded in known history, as well as the simultaneous hurricanes hitting the southern Chinese East Coast. 

The destruction of Lahaina, the capital of Maui, Hawaii, also the seat of the Hawaiian Kingdom, through Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), capable of generating electromagnetic blueish laser-type beams with temperatures of up to 6000 degrees C, literally blowing up buildings, melting cars, but leaving trees intact, killing possibly thousands of people. All make-believe “climate change”.

We, the People, must open our eyes to these realities and the lies from the small but powerful financial-digital-military elite dominating the mainstream with daily misinformation.

Peter Koenig, September 16, 2023

Update. The Testimony of Serdar Hussein, the Head of the Turkish Space Agency

Waking-up is a conscientious trigger that must occur in the soul of each one of us to safe humanity and our civilization.

The conclusion of “No Evidence So Far” in the title referred to the strong suspicion that this horrendous quake was the result of an ENMOD engineered disaster. (Environmental Modification Techniques). Up to this day it killed more than 48,000 people, injured more than half a million, and still tens of thousands are missing.  

Will there ever be justice?

Will the presumed perpetrators be brought to trial?  

The “no evidence” statement is wearing thinner and thinner, especially, when listening to Serdar Hussein, the Head of the Turkish Space Agency talking on Russian TV.

He uses hyperbolic emblematic speech, when talking about the hard titanium alloy material being launched to the Earth. It refers to using the titanium alloy rods to send these deadly, super-power beams of energy to earth, deep into the ground to cause the earthquake:  

Transcript (Translation)

The head of the Turkish Space Agency, Serdar Hussein Yildirim, on weapons capable of causing earthquakes:

You know those power poles on the streets. They are similar to these pillars, about 8-10 meters high. Metal rods.

There is nothing inside the rod, no explosives, nothing, but it’s a metal rod made of a hard titanium alloy material.

They put them in a satellite. A certain amount of. And then they aim and launch them to Earth. It’s like a stick with a sharp point. For example, God forbid, it falls somewhere, we will not name the disaster scenario now, but as soon as it falls to the ground, it penetrates up to 5 km deep into the earth.  

This happens very quickly and creates an earthquake of magnitude 7-8.

As a result of the impact, everything that is there will be destroyed. Look, there are no weapons here, no explosives, no bombs, nothing like that. Simple sticks [rods]. But there is such a force that comes from outer space, and you have no chance to see it, stop it, or defend yourself.”  

See video here

Serdar Hussein’s statement remains to be verified.

Peter Koenig, February 22, 2023

***

According to Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan “More than 13 million people have been affected by the devastating earthquake in Turkey.” (quoted by Tass, February 7, 2023)

“The earthquake has caused colossal damage. It was the biggest-ever calamity not only in our country’s history but in the history of the entire world,” Erdogan was quoted telling local television channels.

“We are living through the most painful days in our history. Two powerful earthquakes, with the epicenters in Pazarcik and Elbistan in Kahramanmaras, [close to the city of Gaziantep] have caused large-scale damage in ten provinces. Around 13.5 million [out of 85 million Turkish population] of our citizens have been affected on these territories,” he said.

Early Monday morning at around 4 AM on February 6, 2023, a massive 7.8 magnitude earthquake rocked southeast Turkey and Syria. According to the US Geological Survey, the earthquake’s epicenter hit an area about 30 km from Gaziantep (2.1 million population), a major city and provincial capital 100 km from the Syrian border. The quake was centered about 18 km deep.

It was followed by a strong 6.7 magnitude aftershock about 10 minutes later. Read more here. See also NY Post drone video below of some of the devastated areas.

The death toll from the earthquake so far exceeds 5,400, and some 32,000 people were injured. This is only after day two, when most of the destruction and rubble has not yet been searched for survivors or bodies.

The earthquake also hit northern Syria, leaving so far at least 1,200 deaths and thousands of injured. (See 2 google maps to the left).

By comparison, the 1960 Chile earthquake hitting the Santiago area was one of the most devastating tremors in recent history, killing some 1,700 people, plus the ensuing tsunami with a death toll of between 2000 and 2,500, and tens of thousands of injured.

A Gigantic Act of Terror?

If President Erdogan is right, that this is one of the world’s largest calamities ever – and it looks very much like he is right – wars notwithstanding, is this an act of terror?

What has Turkey done to elicit such a devastating reaction – by whom?

The US of A? NATO, which as far as command goes is also Washington and the Pentagon?

A few recent initiatives by Turkey – a key member and heavy-weight of NATO for her strategic geographic location between east and west – may have provoked the wrath of her NATO allies.

Not necessarily in order of priority:

1. Turkey has entered an alliance with Russia – which for a NATO-member is like “sleeping with the enemy”. (Michel Chossudovsky) See this and this. Such a partnership with a NATO enemy is indeed an absolute no-go for the west.

2. Under this alliance, Turkey has decided to buy theRussian S-400 Air Defense system, instead of the US Patriot system, as it would behoove for a NATO member, especially one as crucial as is Turkey. Patriot (standing for Phased Array Tracking Radar for Intercept on Target) is a surface-to-air missile and anti-ballistic system. It is NATO’s air defense system. Instead, Turkey’s decision for the more sophisticated, more precise and effective Russian S-400 is a strong backbone for her alliance with Russia.

3. President Erdogan brokered in 2017 a US$ 2.5 billion deal with President Putin for the S-400. First deliveries of the S-400 missile batteries arrived in 2019.

4. The S-400 system is said to pose a risk to the NATO alliance as well as the F-35, America’s most expensive weapons platform. Turkey was severely sanctioned at the time by President Trump, notably by a foreign-manipulated currency devaluation of the Turkish Lira – which had a devastating impact on Turkey’s economy. It is unusual, almost unheard of, for Washington to “punish” a NATO member for misbehavior. 

5. US warship USS Nitze barred from entering the Black Sea through the Turkish controlled Bosporus. According to USNI News, the US warship USS Nitze, a US destroyer, was spotted in early February 2023, operating near the Black Sea. It is said to be the closest a US warship has come to Russia since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine began.

6. On February 3rd, the Nitze was seen at the lower edge of the Bosphorus Strait, en route to a port call in Turkey. The last US warship to pass through the strait was the USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51), which left the Black Sea on December 15, 2021. See Google map below, followed by video on the USS Nitze

 

7. In February 2022, Turkey closed the Bosphorus passage from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea for all vessels which do not have a national port within the Black Sea. This means, US war ships are not allowed to cross from the Med-Sea through the Bosporus into the Black Sea, from where Russia may be vulnerable for cruise missiles form US destroyers, for example the USS Nitze. In the meantime, Nitze has scheduled a port call at Gölcük Naval Base, in the Sea of Marmara (see Google map above).

8. Turkey, a key NATO country, between East and West, with the crucial Bosphorus as the dividing line, is closing a critical strategic passage to her NATO ally – NATO commander – protecting Russia, the US enemy – may not be seen with joy by Washington.

9. Turkish – Syrian rapprochement, is certainly not what Washington wants. It is the latest development in regional surprises, as reported by Arab Center Washington DC – see this.

10. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s interest in a rapprochement with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is the latest chapter in his delicate domestic and regional balancing act, and it has his friends and enemies alike, especially the US, scrambling for how this development might impact them. The rapprochement, if it succeeds, would further complicate the domestic and regional dynamics in northern Syria without securing any clear advantage for Erdogan beyond, perhaps, in the upcoming Turkish elections.

11. Remember the Russian Involvement in Syria – when the US was chased out of Syria? At the request of President Bashar al-Assad – Russian military, mostly air force interference from September 2015 until the end of 2017, was largely responsible for Washington’s significant withdrawal, albeit not complete, from Syria. In 2017, when “mission accomplished”, Russian combat troops were withdrawn, but Russia keeps a nominal military police presence in Northern Syria.

12. Turkey’s Bombshell – a few days ago, rejecting Sweden as NATO member, may have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. For a new country to become a NATO member, ALL NATO nations must approve the new candidate.

13. Sweden says they cannot meet some of the Turkish conditions. Among them are Turkey’s accusations that Sweden is supporting members of the Kurdish Working Party – the PKK, archenemies of Erdogan’s.

14. According to a Turkish Crisis Group, some 30,000 to 40,000 people are estimated to have died in fighting between the PKK and Turkish government, since 1984.

15. Maybe there were also some Russian interests at stake in Turkey’s rejection of Sweden as a NATO member. Although peace has prevailed between Sweden and Russia, since 1809, the two countries never achieved a close relationship, unlike the situation with other neighbors. This is particularly the case with the current Swedish Government.

Turkish General Elections on 14 May 2023.

If the timing of the earthquake was part of a plan, it would fit perfectly into the coming General Elections on 14 May 2023. President Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AK Party), are currently not doing well in popularity polls.

Depending on his dealing with the consequences of the earthquake, he and his Party may gain or lose in approval ratings. Usually, „natural“ disasters do not bode well for the governments in place, regardless of whether they bear any responsibility.

In any case, new elections bring new “opportunities”. In the meantime, it is clear to most analysts, that no elections are truly “democratic” – that there is literally no election in the world in which the decisive vote – the decisive influence – is not exerted by the Anglosaxon western empire.

Replacing Erdogan with a US stooge, might bring Turkey back as the desired all obedient NATO country, no alliance with Russia, no more “sleeping with the enemy”.

Is it a coincidence that just a few days after Turkey rejected Sweden’s candidacy for NATO membership, a massive, deadly and all-destructive earthquake hits Turkey, with serious  ramification for Syria, and even impacting on Cyprus and Lebanon.

Was The Earthquake the Consequence of A Terror Attack? No Evidence

Artificial earthquakes have been prompted before. For example, the 12 January 2010 earthquake off Port-au-Prince, capital city of Haiti, is suspected having been prompted by underwater / underground explosions, in order to bring huge oil reserves lodged largely around the shores of the Caribbean Sea, closer to the surface to be easier accessible and exploitable. William Engdahl’s “Strategic denial of oil in Haiti?” points clearly in this direction.

F. William Engdahl says Geo-physics suggest there could be massive oil and mineral deposits in and off-shore Haiti. See this 9-min video from 30 January 2010.

The US Air Force’s Weather Warfare 

Weather-modification, according to the US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report,  “offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary”:

‘Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.”

The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP)

The US Air Force’s “Weather Warfare” is related to The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) which was developed in the early 1990s.

A scientific report (HAL Id: hal-01082992) regarding HAARP (2011, 2014) explains that high-power ELF radiation generated by modulated HF heating of the ionosphere could cause Earthquakes, Cyclones and localized heating. The paper by Fran De Aquino Maranhao summarized the scientific findings as follows:

“HAARP is currently [2014], [the project was closed in Gakona, Alaska and transferred in 2014] the most important facility used to generate extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic radiation in the ionosphere. In order to produce this ELF radiation, the HAARP transmitter radiates a strong beam of high frequency (HF) waves modulated at ELF.

This HF heating modulates the electrons’ temperature in the D region ionosphere and leads to modulated conductivity and a time-varying current which then radiates at the modulation frequency. Recently, the HAARP HF transmitter operated with 3.6GW of effective radiated power modulated at frequency of 2.5Hz. It is shown that high-power ELF radiation generated by HF ionospheric heaters, such as the current HAARP heater, can cause Earthquakes, Cyclones and strong localized heating.”

The patents used to develop the HAARP program are owned by Raytheon through its E-Systems subsidiary.

It should be noted that with the closing down of  The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) program in Gakona, Alaska in 2014 for another location, the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been actively involved in ENMOD research, most of which is classified. See this

At the time of writing, there is suspicion, but no concrete evidence that the Turkey-Syria Earthquake was an Act of Terror, triggered by Environmental Modification Techniques.

The above statements remain to be fully ascertained.  

 

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

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

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image: The earthquake destroyed buildings in the town of Jandaris, near Afrin, Syria.Credit: Rami al-Sayed/AFP/Getty

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This article first published on March 30, 2011 documents an issue of significance in the current context (See the latest Nuclear Posture Review documents) namely: 

a planned nuclear attack against a non-nuclear State in 1996, using a mini-nuke, namely a tactical earth penetrating tactical nuclear weapon.

Michel Chossudovsky, August 23, 2023, September 16, 2023

 ***

A war on Libya has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 20 years. Using nukes against Libya was first envisaged in 1996.  

On April 14th 1986, Ronald Reagan ordered a series of bombings directed against Libya under “Operation El Dorado Canyon”, in reprisal for an alleged Libya-sponsored terrorist bombing of a Berlin discotheque. The pretext was fabricated. During these air raids, which were condemned by both France and Italy, Qadhafi’s residence was bombed killing his younger daughter.

Barely acknowledged by the Western media, a planned attack on Libya using nuclear weapons had been contemplated by the Clinton Administration in 1996, at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. 

The Department of Defense had developed a new generation of bunker buster tactical nuclear weapons for use in the Middle East and Central Asia: 

“Military officials and leaders of America’s nuclear weapon laboratories [had] urged the US to develop a new generation of precision low-yield nuclear weapons… which could be used in conventional conflicts with third-world nations.” (Federation of American Scientists, 2001, emphasis added)

The B61-11 earth-penetrating weapon with a nuclear warhead had not been tested. It was part of the B61 series, coupled with a so-called “low yield” nuclear warhead. According to US military sources: “If used in North Korea, the radioactive fallout [of the B61-11] could drift over nearby countries such as Japan.” (B61-11 Earth-Penetrating Weapon, Globalsecurity.org). The B61-11 earth-penetrating version of the B61 was configured initially to have a “low” 10 kiloton yield, 66.6 percent of a Hiroshima bomb, for post-Cold War battlefield operations in the Middle East and Central Asia. 

The Pentagon’s Plan to Nuke Libya

The B61-11 tactical nuclear weapon was slated by the Pentagon to be used in 1996 against the “Qadhafi regime”:

“Senior Pentagon officials ignited controversy last April [1996] by suggesting that the earth-penetrating [nuclear] weapon would soon be available for possible use against a suspected underground chemical factory being built by Libya at Tarhunah. This thinly-veiled threat came just eleven days after the United States signed the African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty, designed to prohibit signatories from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against any other signatory, including Libya.” (David Muller, Penetrator N-Bombs, International Action Center, 1997)

Tarbunah has a population of more than 200,000 people, men, women and children. It is about 60 km East of Tripoli. Had this “humanitarian bomb” (with a “yield” or explosive capacity of two-thirds of a Hiroshima bomb) been launched on this “suspected” WMD facility, it would have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, not to mention the nuclear fallout.

Image: Harold Palmer Smith Junior

The man behind this diabolical project to nuke Libya was Assistant Secretary of Defense Harold Palmer Smith Junior. “Even before the B61 came on line, Libya was identified as a potential target”. (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists – September/ October 1997, p. 27, emphasis added)

Harold Palmer Smith had been appointed by President Bill Clinton to oversee nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs with a focus on “the reduction and maintenance of the US arsenal of nuclear weapons”. From the outset, his actual mandate was not to “reduce” but to “increase” the nuclear arsenal by promoting the development of a new generation of “harmless” mini-nukes for use in the Middle East war theater.

“Testing” the B61-11 Nuclear Bomb on an Actual Country

The Department of Defense’s objective under Harold Smith’s advice was to fast-track the “testing” of the B61-11 nuclear bomb on an actual country: 

Five months after [Assistant Defense Secretary] Harold Smith called for an acceleration of the B61-11 production schedule, he went public with an assertion that the Air Force would use the B61-11 [nuclear weapon] against Libya’s alleged underground chemical weapons plant at Tarhunah if the President decided that the plant had to be destroyed. “We could not take [Tarhunah] out of commission using strictly conventional weapons,” Smith told the Associated Press. The B61-11 “would be the nuclear weapon of choice,” he told Jane’s Defence Weekly.

Smith gave the statement during a breakfast interview with reporters after Defense Secretary William Perry had earlier told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on chemical or biological weapons that the U.S. retained the option of using nuclear weapons against countries armed with chemical and biological weapons. (http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/B61-11.htm, emphasis added)

While the Pentagon later denied its intention to bomb Libya’s Tarbunah plant, it nonetheless confirmed that “Washington would not rule out using nuclear weapons [against Libya]”. (Ibid., emphasis added.)

Nukes and Mini-Nukes: Iraq and Afghanistan

The US military contends that “mini-nukes” are “humanitarian bombs” which minimize “collateral damage”. According to scientific opinion on contract to the Pentagon, they are “harmless to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground.”

The B61-11 is a bona fide thermonuclear bomb, a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) in the real sense of the word.  

Military documents distinguish between the Nuclear Earth Penetrator (NEP) and the “mini-nuke”, which are nuclear weapons with a yield of less than 10 kilotons (two-thirds of a Hiroshima bomb). The NEP can have a yield of up to a 1000 kilotons, or seventy times a Hiroshima bomb.

This distinction between mini-nukes and the NEP is in many regards misleading. In practice there is no dividing line. We are broadly dealing with the same type of weaponry: the B61-11 has several “available yields”, ranging from “low yields” of less than one kiloton, to mid-range, and up to the 1000 kiloton bomb.

In all cases, the radioactive fallout is devastating. Moreover, the B61 series of thermonuclear weapons includes several models with distinct specifications: the B61-11, the B61-3, B61- 4, B61-7 and B61-10. Each of these bombs has several “available yields”.

What is contemplated for theater use is the “low yield” 10 kt bomb, two-thirds of a Hiroshima bomb.

The Libya 1997 “Nuclear Option” Had Set the Stage…

Neither the Bush nor the Obama administrations have excluded using thermonuclear bunker buster bombs in the Middle East war theater. These weapons were specifically developed for use in post Cold War “conventional conflicts with third world nations”.  They were approved for use in the conventional war theater by the US Senate in 2002, following the adoption of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review.

In October 2001, in the immediate wake of 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld envisaged the use of the B61-11 in Afghanistan. The stated targets were Al Qaeda cave bunkers in the Tora Bora mountains.

Rumsfeld stated at the time that while the “conventional” bunker buster bombs “‘are going to be able to do the job’… he did not rule out the eventual use of nuclear weapons.” (Quoted in the Houston Chronicle, 20 October 2001, emphasis added.)

The use of the B61-11 was also contemplated during the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq. In this regard, the B61-11 was described as “a precise, earth-penetrating low-yield nuclear weapon against high-value underground targets”, which included Saddam Hussein’s underground bunkers:

“If Saddam was arguably the highest value target in Iraq, then a good case could be made for using a nuclear weapon like the B61-11 to assure killing him and decapitating the regime.” (Defense News, December 8, 2003, emphasis added) 

“All options are on the table”… Sheer madness. Nukes to implement “regime change”… What Rumsfeld had proposed, as part of a “humanitarian mandate”, was the use of a nuclear bomb to “take out” the president of a foreign country. 

[Author’s note: There is no documentary evidence that the B61-11 was used against Iraq.]

Is a Nuclear Attack on Libya Still on the Pentagon’s Drawing Board?

“The Coalition of the Willing” under US-NATO mandate is currently involved in “a humanitarian war” on Libya to “protect the lives of innocent civilians”. 

Is the use of a nuclear bomb excluded under the Alliance’s R2P (Responsibility to Protect) Doctrine? 

The Bush administration’s 2001 nuclear doctrine contained specific “guidelines” regarding “preemptive” nuclear strikes against several countries in the broader Middle East Central Asian region, which explictly included Libya.

As revealed by William Arkin in early 2002, “The Bush administration, in a secret policy review… [had] ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons [the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review approved by the Senate in late 2002] against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the “axis of evil”–Iraq, Iran, and North Korea–but also China, Libya and Syria.” (See William Arkin, “Thinking the Unthinkable”, Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002) 

In addition, the U.S. Defense Department has been told to prepare for the possibility that nuclear weapons may be required in some future Arab-Israeli crisis. And, it is to develop plans for using nuclear weapons to retaliate against chemical or biological attacks, as well as “surprising military developments” of an unspecified nature. These and a host of other directives, including calls for developing bunker-busting mini-nukes and nuclear weapons that reduce collateral damage, are contained in a still-classified document called the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which was delivered to Congress on Jan. 8. (ibid)

The preemptive nuclear doctrine (DJNO) –endorsed by the Obama Administration– allows for the preemptive use of “mini nukes” in conventional war theaters directed against “rogue states”. While the “guidelines” do not exclude other (more deadly) categories of nukes in the US/NATO nuclear arsenal, Pentagon “scenarios” in the Middle East and North Africa are currently limited to the use of tactical nuclear weapons including the B61-11 bunker buster bomb. 

The fact that Libya had been singled out by the Pentagon for a possible 1997 mini-nuke “trial run” was a significant element in the formulation of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).

It is worth noting that tactical B61 nuclear weapons have also been deployed by America’s NATO partners: five European “non-nuclear states”, including Belgium, The Netherlands and Italy, which are directly participating in the Libya bombing campaign, have B61 mini-nukes stockpiled and deployed under national command in their respective military bases. (Michel Chossudovsky, Europe’s Five “Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States“, February 10, 2010) 

These European-based mini-nukes are earmarked for targets in the Middle East. While Libya is not mentioned, according to “NATO strike plans”, the European-based thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs could be launched “against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran” (quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe, February 2005).  

In the context of the ongoing war against Libya, “all options are on the table”, including the preemptive nuclear option, as part of a “humanitarian mandate” to protect the lives of innocent civilians.

In 2007, a Secret 2003 STRATCOM Plan was revealed, which confirmed Washington’s resolve to wage preemptive nuclear attacks against Iran, Syria and Libya. While the concepts and assumptions of this document were derived from the 2001 NPR, the Plan formulated by Strategic Command headquarters (USSTRATCOM) focused concretely on issues of implementation.

The use of  nuclear weapons including the B61-11 against Libya in the course of the current military campaign, as initially envisaged by the Department of Defense in 1997 and subsequently embodied in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) cannot, therefore, be ruled out.

Shortly after the commencement of the Libya bombing campaign on March 19, the Pentagon ordered the testing of the B61-11 nuclear bomb. These tests announced in an April 4 press release, pertained to the installed equipment and weapon’s components. The objective was to verify the functionality of  the nuclear bomb…..  

The B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber is the “chosen carrier” of the B61 -11 nuclear bombs. The B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber out of Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri was not only sent on a mission to bomb Libya at the very outset of the air campaign, it was subsequently used in the testing of the B61 Mod 11 nuclear bomb. 

The B61-11 has a yield of two thirds of a Hiroshima bomb. Why were these tests of the equipment and functionality of a tactical nuclear weapon scheduled shortly after the onset of the Libya bombing campaign?

Why now?

Is the timing of these tests coincidental or are they in any way related to the chronology of the Libya bombing campaign?

U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command, which is responsible for the coordination of US bombing operations directed against Libya was also involved in the testing of the B61-11 nuclear bombs.   

Both the bombing of Libya by the B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber (see image above) on March 19-20, as well as the testing of the functionality of the B61-11 nuclar bomb (announced April 4) were implemented out of the same US Air Force base in Missouri. 

Thinking the Unthinkable. The Pentagon’s Plan to Nuke Libya

The Pentagon had envisaged  the use of the B61-11 nuclear bomb against Libya. Categorized as a mini-nuke, the B61-11 is a 10 kiloton bomb with a yield equivalent to two thirds of a Hiroshima bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America’s Planed Nuclear Attack on Libya, Global Research, March 25, 2011)

The Pentagon’s 1996 plan to nuke Libya had been announced in no uncertain terms at a press briefing by Assistant Secretary of Defense Harold P. Smith:  

“[The] Air Force would use the B61-11 [nuclear weapon] against Libya’s alleged underground chemical weapons plant at Tarhunah if the President decided that the plant had to be destroyed. ‘We could not take [Tarhunah] out of commission using strictly conventional weapons,’ Smith told the Associated Press. The B61-11 ‘would be the nuclear weapon of choice,’ he told Jane Defence Weekly. (The Nuclear Information Project: the B61-11)

Clinton’s Defense Secretary William Perry –who was present at the press briefing– had earlier told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee that “the U.S. retained the option of using nuclear weapons against countries [e.g. Libya] armed with chemical and biological weapons.” (Ibid, See also Greg Mello, The Birth Of a New Bomb; Shades of Dr. Strangelove! Will We Learn to Love the B61-11? The Washington Post, June 01, 1997)

The Department of Defense’s objective was to fast track the “testing” of the B61-11 nuclear bomb on an actual country and that country was Libya:

“Even before the B61 came on line, Libya was identified as a potential target”. (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists – September/ October 1997, p. 27). (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, America’s Planned Nuclear Attack on Libya, March 2011) 

While the 1996 plan to bomb Libya using tactical nuclear weapons was subsequently shelved, Libya was not removed from the “black list”: “The Qadhafi regime” remains to this date a target country for a pre-emptive (“defensive”) nuclear attack.

As revealed by William Arkin in early 2002, “The Bush administration, in a secret policy review… [had] ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the “axis of evil” Iraq, Iran, and North Korea but also China, Libya and Syria.” (See William Arkin, “Thinking the Unthinkable”, Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002).

According to the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, adopted by the Senate in 2002, Libya is on the “Pentagon’s list”. Moreover, it is also important to emphasize that Libya was the first country to be tagged and formally identified (at a Department of Defense press briefing) as a possible target for a US sponsored nuclear attack using the B61 Mod 11 nuclear bomb. This announcement was made in 1996, five years prior to the formulation of  the pre-emptive nuclear war doctrine under the Bush administration (i.e the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review).

The Testing of the B61-11 Nuclear Bomb (Announced on April 4, 2011)

What is the relevance of the history of the B61-11 nuclear bomb and earlier threats directed by the Clinton administration against Libya?

Has the project to nuke Libya been shelved or is Libya still being contemplated as a potential target for a nuclear attack?

Shortly after the commencement of the Libya bombing campaign on March 19, the US Department of Defense ordered the testing of the B61-11 nuclear bomb. These tests pertained to the installed equipment and weapon‘s components of the nuclear bomb.

The announcement of these tests was made public on April 4; the precise date of the test was not revealed, but one can reasonably assume that it was in the days prior to the April 4 press release by the National Nuclear Security Administration. (NNSA. Press Release, NNSA Conducts Successful B61-11 JTA Flight Test, Apr 4, 2011)

The B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber is the US Air Force’s chosen “carrier” for the delivery of the B61 Mod 11 nuclear bomb. In late March or early April (prior to April 4), the B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber from the 509th Bomber Wing operating out of Whiteman Air Force Base, was used in the so-called “Joint Test Assembly” (JTA) of the B61 Mod 11 nuclear bomb.

In other words, the B61-11 was tested using the same B-2 Spirit Stealth bombers out of Whiteman Air Force Base, which were used to bomb Libya at the very outset of the air campaign.

B61-11 Simulation

The Joint Test Assembly (JTA) of the B61-11

This JTA testing was undertaken by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) together with the U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command, which coincidentally is responsible for the coordination of US bombing operations directed against Libya as well as ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The JTA was produced by the NNSA in support of the Joint Surveillance Flight Test Program between the Department of Defense and the NNSA” (Press release, op cit)

The Joint Test Assembly (JTA) in the case of  the B61 Mod 11 nuclear bomb, requires testing the equipment of the B61-11 using a proxy conventional non-nuclear warhead. Essentially what is involved is to test all the installed equipment on the nuclear bomb and ensure its functionality without actually having a nuclear explosion. The JTA test “was built to simulate the actual B61-11 weapon configuration utilizing as much war reserve hardware as feasible.  It was assembled at the Pantex plant in Amarillo, Texas and was not capable of nuclear yield, as it contained no special nuclear materials.”  (Press Release, NNSA Conducts Successful B61-11 JTA Flight Test, Apr 4, 2011)

“JTA tests [are to ensure] that all weapon systems [e.g. B61-11 nuclear bomb] perform as planned and that systems are designed to be safe, secure and effective,”…. A JTA contains instrumentation and sensors that monitor the performance of numerous weapon components [e.g of the B61-11] during the flight test to determine if the weapon functions as designed. This JTA also included a flight recorder that stored the bomb performance data for the entire test. The data is used in a reliability model, developed by Sandia National Laboratories, to evaluate the reliability of the bomb. (Ibid)

B61 Model 11 nuclear bomb at Whiteman Air force base 

The B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber operating out of the Whiteman Air Force Base was reported to have “delivered and released” the B61-11 JTA at the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada, which is routinely used to test nuclear ordnance. (See Press Release, op cit.).

The Tonopah Test Range while owned by the US Department of Energy, is managed and operated by Sandia National Laboratories, a division of America’s largest weapons producer Lockheed-Martin (under permit with the NNSA). (See this)  

Aerial View of Tonopah Test Range where the B61 11 JTA was tested using a B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber. Source NASA. 

The Deployment of B-2 Stealth Bombers to Libya

Why were these JTA tests of the equipment and functionality of a tactical nuclear weapon scheduled shortly after the onset of the Libya bombing campaign?

Why now?

Is the timing of these tests coincidental or are they in any way related to the chronology of the Libya bombing campaign?

It is worth noting that the U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command was in charge of both the JTA tests of the B61-11 as well as the deployment of three B-2 Spirit Stealth bombers to Libya on March 19.  

“Three B-2 Spirit bombers, piloted by two men each, made it back after the 11,418-mile round trip from the Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri – where they are kept in special hangars – to Libya, where they hit targets on forces loyal to Colonel Gaddafi and back again.”(Libya-crisis-B2-stealth-bombers-25-hour-flight-Missouri-Tripoli, Daily Mail, March 21, 2011)

In other words, both the deployment of the B-2s to the Libya war theater as well as the JTA  test (using the B-2 bomber for delivery) were coordinated out of Whiteman Air Force base.

“Humanitarian war” is carried out through a “Shock and Awe” Blitzkrieg. Three B-2 Spirit Stealth bombers were sent on a bombing mission at the very outset of the Libya bombing campaign. According to the reports, they returned to Whiteman Air Force base on March 21st. The reports suggest that the three B-2s were carrying bunker buster bombs with conventional warheads.

The report suggests that the B-2 Stealth bombers dropped 45 one ton satellite guided missiles on Libya, which represents an enormous amount of ordnance: “At $2.1bn, they are the most expensive warplanes in the world and rarely leave their climate-controlled hangars. But when it does, the B-2 bomber makes a spectacularly effective start to a war – including during this weekend’s aerial attack on Libya’s air defences. (Daily Mail, March 21, 2011, op cit)  

While we are not in a position to verify the accuracy of these reports, the 45 one-ton bombs correspond roughly to the B-2 specifications, namely each of these planes can carry sixteen 2,000 pound (900 kg) bombs.

Whiteman Air Force Base

Concluding Remarks: The Decision to Use Nuclear Weapons

Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of “authoritative” nuclear scientists, the B61-11 “mini-nuke” is presented as an instrument of peace rather than war.

In an utterly twisted logic, low yield tactical nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing “collateral damage”. 

In this regard, US nuclear doctrine ties in with the notion that the US-NATO war under Operation Odyssey Dawn is a humanitarian undertaking.  

The important question addressed in this article is whether the recent test of a B61-11 is “routine” or was it envisaged by the DoD directly or indirectly in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn, implying the possible deployment of mini nukes at some future stage of the Libya bombing campaign. There is no clear-cut answer to this question.

It should be emphasized, however, that under the doctrine of “pre-emptive nuclear war” mini nukes are always deployed and  in “a state of readiness” (even in times of peace). Libya was the first “rogue state” to be tagged for a nuclear attack in 1996 prior to the approval of the mini nukes for battlefield use by the US Congress.

The Pentagon claims that “mini-nukes” are harmless to civilians because  “the explosion takes place under ground”.  Not only is the claim of an underground explosion erroneous, each of these ‘mini-nukes’,  constitutes – in terms of explosion and potential radioactive fallout – a significant fraction of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945…. 

We are at a dangerous crossroads: The rules and guidelines governing the use nuclear weapons have been “liberalized” (i.e. “deregulated” in relation to those prevailing during the Cold War era). The decision to use low yield nuclear nuclear weapons (e.g. against Libya) no longer depends on the Commander in Chief, namely president Barack Obama. It is strictly a military decision. The new doctrine states that Command, Control, and Coordination (CCC) regarding the use of nuclear weapons should be “flexible”, allowing geographic combat commanders to decide if and when to use of nuclear weapons: 

Known in official Washington, as “Joint Publication 3-12”, the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for “integrating conventional and nuclear attacks” under a unified and “integrated” Command and Control (C2).

It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.

Military planning focuses on “the most efficient use of force”, i.e. an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals. In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be “part of the tool box”, from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with “evolving circumstances” in the “war theatre”. (None of these weapons in the Pentagon’s “tool box”, including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as “weapons of mass destruction” when used by the United States of America and its “coalition” partners). Michel Chossudovsky, Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust? Global Research, February 22, 2006  

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

---

ANNEX  The B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber

The B-2 Spirit aircraft is described as “deadly and effective’ yet at the same time it is upheld as an instrument  of “humanitarian warfare”. Used at the outset of Operation Odyssey Dawn, this aircraft has the mandate under UN Security Councill resolution 1973 to   “protect the lives of civilians”.

“An assessment published by the USAF showed that two B-2s armed with precision weaponry can do the job of 75 conventional aircraft. That makes it a powerful weapon to strike targets including bunkers, command centres, radars, airfields, air defences.” (Ibid) The mission is said to have have dropped  a total of 45 one ton satellite guided missiles, which broadly corresponds to the 15 out of the 16 2000 pound bombs mentioned above.(Ibid) 

The B-2 Spirit as carrier of the B61 mod 11 bunker buster bomb, is equipped to accommodate 16 B61-11 mini-nukes of about 1,200 lb (540 kg).

See the following videos: 

Northrop Grunman Video Clip on the B-2

Military PR videoclip on the B-2
The B-2 was brought down by the Yugoslav air defense system in 1999, which the video does not mention

Returning to Whiteman Air force base on March 21, see this and this

---

“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

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The UK is falling even further behind Europe in its efforts to remove chemicals harmful to both human health and the environment from the market.

There are presently 36 pesticides – including 13 categorised as highly hazardous – authorised for use in the UK that are prohibited in EU nations, according to a study by Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK).

This group includes four pesticides that pose a high toxicity risk to bees, one that contaminates water, and another that is highly toxic to aquatic organisms. The UK will continue to employ these 13 hazardous pesticides for an additional two to five years compared to EU nations.

Protect

Nick Mole, policy officer at PAN UK, said:

“The UK is becoming the toxic poster child of Europe. The government has repeatedly promised that our environmental standards won’t slip post-Brexit. And yet here we are, less than four years later, and already we’re seeing our standards fall far behind those of the EU.

“With UK bees and other pollinators in decline, and our waters never more polluted, now is the time to be taking steps to protect nature. Instead, the government is choosing to expose British wildlife to an ever-more toxic soup of chemicals.”

Additionally, PAN UK’s study unveiled an increasing concern for human health, displayed by the following list of 36 pesticides permitted in the UK, but prohibited in the EU.

Permitted Pesticides

• 12 are classified as carcinogens, capable of causing different types of cancer, including leukaemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma;
• Nine are endocrine disruptors (EDCs), which interfere with hormone systems and can cause birth defects, developmental disorders and reproductive problems, such as infertility;
• Eight are ‘developmental or reproductive toxins’, which have adverse effects on sexual function and fertility in both adults and children, and can reduce the number of functionality of sperm and cause miscarriages;
• Two are cholinesterase inhibitors, reducing the ability of nerve cells to pass information to each other and can impair the respiratory system, causing confusion, headaches and weakness;
• One is classified as acutely toxic, meaning that adverse health effects can result either from a single exposure or from multiple ones in a short period of time (usually 24 hours).

Health

The majority of the chemicals in question (30) were allowed for use in the EU when the UK left on 31st January 2020, but have since been removed from the EU market. The remaining six chemicals have been approved by the UK government, but not in the EU, since Brexit.

One of the primary reasons for the disparity in standards originates from a decision made by the UK government. They have granted an automatic three-year extension to all pesticides with licenses set to expire before December 2023, indicating limited governmental capacity for re-approving pesticides. 

Previously, the UK had a policy of granting a maximum 15-year license to pesticides before requiring re-approval, acknowledging the substantial risks these chemicals pose to both human health and the environment.

“The UK government promised to drive a reduction in pesticide use back in 2018 and yet we’re still waiting for them to take action”, added Mole.

These measures will also affect trade deals between the UK and EU, explained Mole:

“The emerging gap between the UK and EU pesticide standards is incredibly concerning for our human health and environmental protections, but also for the future of UK agriculture as our standards fall further and further behind those of our largest trading partner.

Trading

“UK food exports containing pesticides that EU growers aren’t allowed to use, are likely to be rejected. Given that the EU still accounts for around 60% of UK agricultural exports, the impact on farmers could be devastating.”

PAN UK urges the UK government to, at the very least, maintain alignment with EU pesticide norms and prevent any further deterioration of existing UK standards. 

Additionally, PAN UK advocates for the immediate implementation of long-overdue measures, including pesticide reduction targets, the halt of pesticide use in urban areas, and the enhancement of state support for farmers to reduce their reliance on agrochemicals.

The UK pesticide policies will have far-reaching effects, impacting not just the health of individuals and the environment, but also our farmers and our trade agreements with the EU, our largest trading partner.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Monica Piccinini is a freelance writer, focused on environmental, health and human rights issues.

Featured image: Barrie Williams / Crown copyright / Scottish Government / Creative Commons 2.0

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The growing US’ geopolitical competition with Russia and China marks the end of the post-Cold War world order, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, speaking at the Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies on Wednesday.

“What we are experiencing now is more than a test of the post-Cold War order. It’s the end of it,” he noted.

“Decades of relative geopolitical stability have given way to an intensifying competition with authoritarian powers, revisionist powers.”

This statement appears to be a rallying cry for a “new cold war.”

Since the post-Cold War order is coming to an end, what kind of new world order does the US want?

Various signs indicate that the US wants major power competition and camp confrontation in order to maintain its global hegemony, even at the expense of the interests of other countries, including allies, and partner nations.

However, the reality is that major power competition goes against the trend of the times and cannot solve the US’ own problems and the challenges facing the world. It will only further divide the world, leading the world to slide toward a more dangerous cliff edge.

Regarding Blinken’s remarks, there are two main points to consider.

Firstly, Blinken was creating a sense of crisis in the world. The underlying message to US allies and other countries is that there are challengers, particularly China and Russia, who want to change the existing order.

Secondly, Blinken’s remarks also reflect a sense of anxiety in the US. The US is attempting to slow down China’s rise through strategic competition, while hoping to sustain its hegemony without jeopardizing its own interests. However, it seems that the US has no clear solution to this dilemma.

China is one of the beneficiaries of the existing system and does not seek to challenge or subvert this order. However, the US has viewed any legitimate demand made by China, even those that reflect the reasonable demands of the majority of developing countries, as a challenge and ill-intentioned sabotage.

Xin Qiang, deputy director of the American Studies Center of Fudan University, believes that US irrational crackdown on China will only irritate China and other developing countries.

Many developing countries share common demands with China, but the US opposes whatever China proposes and intends to strangle its legitimate right for development. This will ultimately lead to the destruction of the existing international order and be counterproductive to the US’ goals.

The US believes that by containing China, it will gain an advantage. However, whatever damage they’re doing to China, it also backfires on the US and even the world.

The US now sees China as a competitor and challenger, opposing and obstructing anything that may benefit China, regardless of its impact on the US. This approach not only fails to maintain US hegemony but also leads it further away from the right direction.

Today, the US is embroiled in simultaneous confrontations with China and Russia. The US needs to think carefully, as it will be more difficult to engage in a “new cold war” compared to the previous one. In the 1970s, the US GDP accounted for nearly one-third of the global total, but now it is only one-fourth. Its two major opponents are the nuclear power Russia and the economic powerhouse China. In order to defeat Russia, the US must ultimately dismantle its nuclear deterrence, which would be a thrilling adventure.

As for China, the US is attempting to stifle its development by imposing unlimited technological restrictions, but it is unable to completely decouple from China economically. For the US and its main allies, China is either their largest single trading partner or one of the largest. Today, the US is a reckless strategic aggressor, attempting to unite its relatively weaker strength with its allies to wage a new cold war. It should be noted that the power of US allies has declined significantly, and the unity of the “West” is crippled due to the US transitioning from a “blood donor” to a “vampire”.

The current generation of American elites arrogantly seeks to replicate the victory of the Cold War, but they will never succeed. Instead, the US will face a different ending.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

 

On August 20, Bernardo Arévalo was elected president of Guatemala, defeating conservative Sandra Torres. An anti-graft crusader, Arévalo has promised to root out corruption and create a large public jobs program by improving services like water sanitation.

Political analyst Edgar Ortiz Romero called Arévalo “the most progressive candidate to get this far since 1985” when democracy was restored to Guatemala after three decades of military rule following a 1954 CIA-orchestrated coup.

Arévalo, 64, is the son of Juan José Arévalo, Guatemala’s president from 1945 to 1951, who is exalted for creating Guatemala’s social security system and guaranteeing freedom of speech.

A philosophy professor, Arévalo was elected as Guatemala’s first democratic leader following a popular uprising against U.S.-backed dictator Jorge Ubico who served the interests of the United Fruit Company in Guatemala, which owned most of the country’s best land.

Advocating for a “spiritual socialism,” Arévalo refused international loans that would compromise Guatemala’s national sovereignty, and increased Guatemala’s government budget from $24 million in 1945 to $60 million, directing the extra funds into building new roads and schools and providing better social services.

In 1951, Arévalo ceded power to Jacobo Arbenz, who angered the United Fruit Company by trying to purchase some of their fallow land, and was overthrown in the 1954 CIA coup.

Mural in Guatemala City on 50^th anniversary of CIA coup. [Source: sott.net]

Born in 1959, Bernardo Arévalo grew up in exile because his father was forced to flee Guatemala after the coup.

In 1956, Juan José Arévalo published a devastating indictment of U.S. imperialism in Latin America, The Shark and the Sardines (an English version of the book appeared in 1961). It lamented the “subordination of the White House” to a “syndicate of millionaires” that were intent on plundering Latin America’s natural resources in order to sustain North America’s industrial productivity and get even richer.

Arévalo wrote that, beginning in the early 20^th century, the U.S. “became great while progress in Latin America was brought to a halt. And when anything or anyone tried to interfere with the bankers or the companies, use was made of the Marines,” including in “Panama, 1903, Nicaragua, 1909, Mexico and Haiti, 1914, [and] Santo Domingo, 1916.”

A key case study in the book was Nicaragua, where Arévalo detailed how Brown Brothers came to dominate Nicaragua’s economy and pushed for regime change and the sending of the Marines.

The shark tried to swallow the sardines again in Venezuela to enforce the interests of the Rockefellers’ Standard Oil dynasty after Venezuela’s first freely elected President Rómulo Gallegos stood against them.

According to Arévalo, Gallegos was “the finest, most honorable and most generous man who could be imagined in politics” who was “torn down from the presidency by the force of dollar guided guns and bayonets.”^[1]

According to historian Stephen G. Rabe, U.S. officials resented Arévalo’s bitter critique of U.S. foreign policy in The Shark and the Sardines and blamed Arévalo for Guatemala’s leftward drift during the 1940s and 1950s.^[2]

In November 1959, the U.S. ambassador to Guatemala, Lester D. Mallory, the architect of the U.S. embargo policy on Cuba, informed Guatemalan President Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes that the prospect of Arévalo coming to power or even being physically present in Guatemala would be “nothing short of disastrous.”^[3]

In August 1961, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Edwin Martin concluded that “there was no proof that he [Arévalo] was a communist but reason to suspect that he would be more open to both their ideas and party members than we would like a Guatemalan president to be.” President John F. Kennedy in turn judged Arévalo to be “quite a risk,” while Secretary of State Dean Rusk called him “a menace.”^[4]

The CIA consequently kept Arévalo under tight surveillance while he was living in Mexico City and immediately informed U.S. national security officials when he arrived in Guatemala on March 27, 1963, after flying in on a private airplane.

The CIA was angry that Ydígoras Fuentes had allowed Arévalo into the country, saying that he had acted duplicitously, and supported a military coup against Fuentes led by Colonel Enrique Peralta Azurdia.

According to Rabe, the Kennedy administration went through the motions of disapproving the coup and very briefly suspended diplomatic relations, but on the day of the coup inquired whether the new regime needed equipment to put down potential public disorder. As Assistant Secretary Martin put it: “We were disposed to want to be helpful.”^[5]

Between 1961 and 1963, the Kennedy administration sent $4.3 million in military aid to Guatemala, compared to $950,000 in military aid that Eisenhower delivered between 1956 and 1960, and began providing Guatemalan military officers with counterinsurgency training in a new center established in Guatemala. The U.S. also continued to provide Alliance for Progress aid after the coup, though it was understood that the military regime would block land and tax reform and universal public education as “communist.”

The State Department tried to pressure Peralta to restore constitutionalism, leading to the election of a “non-extremist liberal government,” and precluding the election of Arévalo “or any other extremist or pro-communist candidate.” The Guatemalan officer corps eventually scheduled an election, which led to the victory of Julio César Méndez Montenegro, a political moderate, in March 1966, though Guatemala subsequently descended further into civil war.^[6]

The political landscape has changed considerably since the 1960s as the political left in Guatemala was crushed during the years of civil war and U.S.-backed genocide in the 1980s.^[7]

Though influenced by his father, Bernardo Arévalo is less of a threat to the U.S. because there does not exist a strong left-wing movement pushing him to undertake major economic reforms that would undercut U.S. business interests in Guatemala, including by amending a corporate friendly tax system.

Fighting a rear-guard battle against the extreme right, Bernardo Arévalo’s platform is center-left, focused on fighting corruption and initiating modest social improvements and public works projects.

Arévalo at the same time has not denounced U.S. imperialism in terms similar to his father, and has criticized alleged human rights abuses in socialist Venezuela and the supposed authoritarianism of Daniel Ortega’s left-wing government in Nicaragua.^[8]

Ortega was the leader of the 1979 socialist Sandinista Revolution which overthrew the U.S.-backed Somoza dynasty and survived a U.S. coup attempt in 2018.

He has helped Nicaragua assert its economy autonomy and is a symbol of resistance to Yankee imperialism. Juan José Arévalo as such would have celebrated him, given the history of U.S. imperialism in Nicaragua that he reviewed in The Shark and the Sardines.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

1. Juan José Arévalo, The Shark and the Sardines (New York: Lyle Stuart, 1961). 

2. Stephen G. Rabe, The Most Dangerous Area in the World: John F. Kennedy Confronts Communist Revolution in Latin America (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 74. 
3. Rabe, The Most Dangerous Area in the World, 74. Ydígoras Fuentes was a representative of the oligarchic elite who had served in the regime of Jorge Ubico. John Muccio, the U.S. ambassador to Guatemala and former U.S. ambassador to South Korea, said that President Ydígoras reminded him of Syngman Rhee because “he’d say yes to everything, as long as he was on the receiving end.” Rhee was installed by the U.S. in the late 1940s and terrorized the political left, killing around 100,000 of his own people. State Department officials said that Ydígoras’s government suffered from “run of the mill graft, maladministration, and some disregard for personal liberties.” Although the antithesis of the “decent democrat” called for in the Alliance, the Kennedy administration tolerated President Ydígoras because he fervently supported its Cold War policies, according to Rabe. In 1960-61, he permitted the CIA to use a political crony’s private estate on the southern coast of Guatemala to train Cuban exiles in preparation for the Bay of Pigs invasion. 
4. Rabe, The Most Dangerous Area in the World, 74. 
5. Rabe, The Most Dangerous Area in the World, 75. 
6. Rabe, The Most Dangerous Area in the World, 77. 
7. See Greg Grandin, The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War, rev ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011). 

8. While campaigning, Arévalo said of the situation in Nicaragua: “We think it is a disaster. Our foreign policy will be to promote democracy, always, both abroad and at home.” Arévalo also criticized Russia over the war in Ukraine and has no stated plans to recognize China over Taiwan. Asked for a leader he admires, he named José Pepe Mujica, the progressive ex-president of Uruguay, where he was born during his father’s exile. 

Featured image: Bernardo Arevalo (Licensed under the Public Domain)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The United States is gunning for war with China. By cozying up to Taiwan and arming it to the teeth, President Joe Biden is undermining the “One China” policy which has been the cornerstone of U.S.-China relations since 1979.

The Biden administration is enlisting South Korea and Japan to encircle China. The U.S. military is conducting provocative military maneuvers that exacerbate the conflict in the South China Sea. Biden is escalating tensions with China and intensifying the danger of nuclear war in the Asia-Pacific. And Republican presidential candidates are also fanning the flames of war with China.

In March, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines called China the “leading and most consequential threat to U.S. national security.” Chinese President Xi Jinping stated,

“Western countries — led by the U.S. — have implemented all-round containment, encirclement and suppression against us.”

The Biden administration has “doubled down on the most insanely bellicose aspects of Trump administration policies, especially over Taiwan, which the U.S. had long recognized as part of China,” Peter Kuznick, professor of history and director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, told Truthout.

More than 90 percent of the most advanced microchips in the world are manufactured in Taiwan. The chips are used to power our smartphones, train artificial intelligence systems and guide missiles. The Trump administration imposed heavy tariffs on Chinese imports to cut off China’s access to the software technology and equipment required to build the advanced chips.

Biden has maintained and dramatically expanded Trump’s coercive economic measures and imposed a blockade on advanced semiconductors. “Official U.S. policy is to make a nation of almost a billion and a half people poorer,” David Brooks wrote in The New York Times.

In 1979, the United States declared that the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was “the sole legal Government of China.” That policy was consistent with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, which recognized the PRC as the only legitimate government of China and one of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

“But now the ‘One China’ policy seems a relic of a foregone era and the U.S. seems hellbent on militarizing the Pacific in order to contain China,” Kuznick, who is coauthor with Oliver Stone of the New York Times best-selling book and documentary film series The Untold History of the United States, said. “This reckless policy will, if we are lucky, lead to a new Cold War. If we are unlucky, it portends a third world war — one that our species might not survive.”

Biden has repeatedly stated that the United States would use military force to defend Taiwan if it is attacked by China. The Biden administration has provided Taiwan with $619 million worth of high-tech arms.

Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan in August 2022, angering China, which staged extensive war games around Taiwan in response.

In April, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen met with a bipartisan U.S. congressional delegation in Simi Valley, California, the most high-profile meeting between U.S. and Taiwanese leaders on U.S. soil since 1979. The Chinese Embassy called the encounter a “serious mistake.” The foreign ministry responded by pledging to “take resolute and forceful measures” to defend its territorial integrity.

At the G20 summit in Indonesia in November 2022, Xi told Biden in no uncertain terms:

“The Taiwan question is at the very core of China’s core interests, the bedrock of the political foundation of China-U.S. relations, and the first red line that must not be crossed.”

The U.S. Is the “Most War-Making Country” in the World

Speaking on a panel at the Veterans For Peace (VFP) annual convention on August 25, Kuznick remarked that China has not been at war with any country since 1979. By contrast, the United States has had only 16 years of peace in its 247 years. “The U.S. is the most war-making country” in the world, Kuznick said.

K.J. Noh, an activist scholar who writes about the geopolitics of the Asian continent, also spoke on the VFP panel. Noh described South Korea as key to the U.S.’s escalating war on China. “The United States has operational control over South Korean troops,” Noh said. The U.S. is also “weaponizing Taiwan into an imperial outpost for war.”

The third panelist was Simone Chun, a researcher and activist specializing in inter-Korean relations and U.S. foreign policy on the Korean Peninsula. She echoed Noh’s comments, calling South Korea a “pawn in Washington’s march to war against China.” South Korea, Chun said, is a “subcontractor in the new Cold War.”

In an article for Truthout in March, Chun characterized “[t]he U.S. military encirclement of China” as threatening “to escalate into an Asia-Pacific war, with the Korean Peninsula at the focal point of this dangerous path.” South Korea has 30,000 combat-ready U.S. troops on 73 U.S. military bases in the small country.

Since the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” in 2012, 60 percent of U.S. naval forces have been transferred to the Asia-Pacific, and 400 of the 800 U.S. military bases worldwide and 130,000 troops “are now circling China,” Chun wrote. The U.S.’s “goal is to force China’s hand by triggering and escalating a hybrid war on multiple fronts, including military, technology, economy, information and media.”

South Korea and Japan are encircling China from the north, and Australia and Indonesia are surrounding China from the south. South Korea’s right-wing president, Yoon Suk-yeol, welcomes the deployment of U.S. tactical weapons to South Korea and intends to arm his country with nuclear weapons, according to Chun.

The U.S., U.K. and Australia (“AUKUS”) announced in March that Australia would buy three nuclear-powered submarines by the “early 2030s.” The Chinese mission to the UN condemned the deal, tweeting, “The irony of AUKUS is that two nuclear weapons states who claim to uphold the highest nuclear non-proliferation standard are transferring tons of weapons-grade enriched uranium to a non-nuclear-weapon state, clearly violating the object and purpose of the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty].”

The nuclear submarine cooperation plan released today by #AUKUS is a blatant act that constitutes serious nuclear proliferation risks, undermines international non-proliferation system, fuels arms races, and hurts peace and stability in the region.

— Chinese Mission to UN (@Chinamission2un) March 13, 2023

In October 2022, the U.S. announced it would deploy as many as six nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to northern Australia, within striking range of China.

U.S. Promotes Expansion of NATO Into the Asia-Pacific

The United States is promoting the expansion of NATO into the Asia-Pacific “to close the military circle around China,” Chun writes. The U.S. seeks to extend the influence of NATO to Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

Chun identifies three significant aspects of the U.S. strategy: 1) stepped-up remilitarization of Japan; 2) “revitalization of extremist hardline North Korea policies” in Washington and Seoul and 3) escalation of “belligerent wargames targeted at China and North Korea.”

After World War II, the United States imposed a “peace constitution” on Japan but later pushed aggressively for Japanese rearmament to further the U.S.’s strategy to dominate the Asia-Pacific. The United States considers the remilitarization of Japan “the linchpin of U.S. security interests in Asia,” Chun notes.

The U.S. policy on North Korea is aimed at magnifying the purported “North Korea threat” and using it as a pretext to enlist South Korea and Japan in its scheme to contain China. Moreover, the joint military exercises between the U.S. and South Korea are dress rehearsals for an attack on and occupation of North Korea and the “decapitation” of its leadership — a “plan for regime collapse and occupation,” Chun writes.

The South China Sea Is a Flashpoint

There are competing claims of sovereignty over bodies of land and their contiguous waters in the South China Sea. Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei oppose China’s historical claim to 90 percent of the South China Sea. This has led to tensions that have been exacerbated by U.S. military maneuvers in the sea.

The South China Sea is one of the busiest maritime shipping routes, connecting it with China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Singapore, the Strait of Malacca and the Pacific Coast of the U.S. In 2016, more than 21 percent of global trade, totaling $3.37 trillion, transited through the South China Sea.

In July 2016, the Arbitral Tribunal in The Hague ruled for the Philippines in its case against China. The tribunal determined that China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea and its actions toward the Philippines did not comply with international law. China refused to abide by the ruling.

“American warships regularly move around the restricted area of China’s major islands under the range of Chinese guns, and at any time, due to some incident, military conflict between the two powerful superpowers could explode,” Professor Dmitri Valentinovic Mosiakov wrote in the International Review of Contemporary Law of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. “US military expeditions, which are supposed to demonstrate the US commitment to the defense of freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, in fact only reinforce and justify such activities of China’s military preparation.”

Mosiakov added that in July 2022, “the United States decided that it was necessary to remind the People’s Republic of China who was to determine the rules of navigation in the South China Sea. Another US destroyer sailed into waters where China had declared a ban for military ships.”

The U.S. military does not belong in the South China Sea and its provocative actions compound the danger of an already tense situation.

“The greatest threat to peace and stability in northeast Asia is the U.S. Indo-Pacific military encirclement of China,” Chun wrote.

Likewise, Kuznick told Truthout, “U.S. policy makers seem so terrified by China’s extraordinary growth and challenge to U.S. hegemony in the Pacific that they are willing to risk nuclear annihilation to prevent it.”

We must heed Daniel Ellsberg’s admonition shortly before he died. He implored us to pursue “the urgent goal of working with others to avert nuclear war in Ukraine or Taiwan (or anywhere else).”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace, and the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. She is founding dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and the U.S. representative to the continental advisory council of the Association of American Jurists. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues. She is co-host of “Law and Disorder” Radio.

She is a regular contributor to Global Research

Featured image: The U.S.S. Nimitz conducts routine operations while transiting the South China Sea on February 4, 2023. (Source: NAVY PETTY OFFICER 2ND CLASS DAVID ROWE)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The AAPS statement of patients’ freedoms provides that patients have the right to be informed about the risks and benefits of any medical intervention, and have the right to refuse medical treatment.

The use of masks and other face coverings, as a public health measure or otherwise, are a type of medical intervention to which the above informed consent rights apply.

Government recommendations and mandates regarding face coverings have been contradictory, provided to the public as authoritative without evidence, are in conflict with the available data, and neglect to mention any potential harm from use of coverings or masks.

Concerning efficacy, in addition to the indisputable failure of mask mandates to prevent outbreaks of COVID, the Cochrane systematic review of available empirical evidence concluded that studies “did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks,” and  “[t]here were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection.”

Concerning the potential for harm, there are at least 60 studies and reports that illuminate downsides of masking and face-coverings in different scenarios and among varied patient groups. Examples of harm found in the peer-reviewed literature, include:

• Prolonged use of mask is not a neutral event and in fact can cause harm. “Prolonged use of N95 and surgical masks by healthcare professionals during COVID-19 has caused adverse effects such as headaches, rash, acne, skin breakdown, and impaired cognition in the majority of those surveyed.”
• Findings indicate that wearing the N95 mask for 14 hours significantly affected the physiological, biochemical, and perception parameters in a negative fashion.
• The possibility that masks hinder the acquisition of speech and language in children exists. “Overall, the research to date demonstrates that the visible articulations that babies normally see when others are talking play a key role in their acquisition of communication skills. Research also shows that babies who lip-read more have better language skills when they’re older. If so, this suggests that masks probably hinder babies’ acquisition of speech and language.”
• Experimental data has shown “carbon dioxide content in inhaled air rises on average to 13,000 to 13,750 ppm no matter whether children wear a surgical or an FFP2 mask. This is far beyond the level of 2,000 ppm considered the limit of acceptability and beyond the 1,000 ppm that are normal for air in closed rooms. This estimate is rather on the low side, as we only measured this after a short time without physical exertion.”
• Society requires facial recognition as a most basic component of interaction and communication. Studies in individuals with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) have shown that “Poor face perception in AMD is an important domain contributing to impaired social interactions and quality of life”.  Voluntary masking with no gain contributes to societal alienation.

Therefore, be it stated:

As mask mandates are contrary to the fundamental medical principle of informed consent, all masking mandates currently in place must be rescinded, and no future mandates should be imposed. 

Furthermore, since mask mandates for viral illnesses provide no clear benefits, while creating potential for harm, individuals should be empowered to choose to not observe such mandates that are either currently in existence or that may be imposed in the future.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from AAPS

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

This report is designed to help readers think about some big topics: how to really prevent pandemics and biological warfare, how to assess proposals by the WHO and its members for responding to pandemics, and whether we can rely on our health officials to navigate these areas in ways that make sense and will help their populations.

We start with a history of biological arms control and rapidly move to the COVID pandemic, eventually arriving at plans to protect the future.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Chem/Bio

Traditionally, the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) have been labelled Chemical, Biological, Radiologic, and Nuclear (CBRN).

The people of the world don’t want them used on us—for they are cheap ways to kill and maim large numbers of people quickly. And so international treaties were created to try to prevent their development (only in the later treaties) and use (in all the biological arms control treaties). First was the Geneva Protocol of 1925, following the use of poison gases and limited biological weapons in World War I, banning the use of biological and chemical weapons in war. The US and many nations signed it, but it took 50 years for the US to ratify it, and during those 50 years the US asserted it was not bound by the treaty.

The US used both biological and chemical weapons during those 50 years. The US almost certainly used biological weapons in the Korean War (see this, this, this and this) and perhaps used both in Vietnam, which experienced an odd outbreak of plague during the war. The use of napalm, white phosphorus, agent orange (with its dioxin excipient causing massive numbers of birth defects and other tragedies) and probably other chemical weapons like BZ (a hallucinogen/incapacitant) led to much pushback, especially since we had signed the Geneva Protocol and we were supposed to be a civilized nation.

In 1968 and 1969, two important books were published that had a great influence on the American psyche regarding our massive stockpiling and use of these agents. The first book, written by a young Seymour Hersh about the US chemical and biological warfare program, was titled Chemical and Biological Warfare; America’s Hidden Arsenal. In 1969 Congressman Richard D. McCarthy, a former newspaperman from Buffalo, NY wrote the book The Ultimate Folly: War by Pestilence, Asphyxiation and Defoliation about the US production and use of chemical and biological weapons. Prof. Matthew Meselson’s review of the book noted,

Our operation, “Flying Ranch Hand,” has sprayed anti-plant chemicals over an area almost the size of the state of Massachusetts, over 10 per cent of its cropland. “Ranch Hand” no longer has much to do with the official justification of preventing ambush. Rather, it has become a kind of environmental warfare, devastating vast tracts of forest inorder to facilitate our aerial reconnaissance. Our use of “super teargas” (it is also a powerful lung irritant) has escalated from the originallyannounced purpose of saving lives in “riot control-like situations” to the full-scale combat use of gas artillery shells, gas rockets and gas bombs to enhance the killing power of conventional high explosive and flame weapons. Fourteen million pounds have been used thus far, enough to cover all of Vietnam with a field effective concentration. Many nations, including some of our own allies have expressed the opinion that this kind of gas warfare violates the Geneva Protocol, a view shared by McCarthy.

A Biological Weapons Convention

Amid great pushback over US conduct in Vietnam, and seeking to burnish his presidency, President Nixon announced to the world in November 1969 that the US was going to end its biowarfare program (but not the chemical program). Following pointed reminders that Nixon had not eschewed the use of toxins, in February 1970 Nixon announced we would also get rid of our toxin weapons also, which included snake, snail, frog, fish, bacterial, and fungal toxins that could be used for assassinations and other purposes.

It has been claimed that these declarations resulted from careful calculations that the US was far ahead technically of most other nations in its chemical and nuclear weapons. But biological weapons were considered the “poor man’s atomic bomb” and required much less sophistication to produce. Therefore, the US was not far ahead in the biological weapons arena. By banning this class of weapon, the US would gain strategically.

Nixon told the world that the US would initiate an international treaty to prevent the use of these weapons ever again. And we did so: the 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, or Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) for short, which entered into force in 1975.

But in 1973 genetic engineering (recombinant DNA) was discovered by Americans Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen, which changed the biological warfare calculus. Now the US had regained a technological advantage for this type of endeavor.

The Biological Weapons Convention established conferences to be held every 5 years to strengthen the treaty. The expectation was that these would add a method to call for ‘challenge inspections’ to prevent nations from cheating and would add sanctions (punishments) if nations failed to comply with the treaty. However, since 1991 the US has consistently blocked the addition of protocols that would have an impact on cheating. By now, everyone accepts that cheating occurs and is likely widespread.

A leak in an anthrax production facility in Sverdlovsk, USSR in 1979 caused the deaths of about 60 people. While the USSR tried a sloppy cover-up, blaming contaminated black market meat, this was a clear BWC violation to all those knowledgeable about anthrax.

US experiments with anthrax production during the Clinton administration, detailed by Judith Miller et al. in the 2001 book Germs, were also thought by experts to have transgressed the BWC.

It has taken over 40 years, but in 2022 all declared stocks of chemical weapons had been destroyed by the USA, by Russia, and the other 193 member nation signatories. The chemical weapons convention does include provisions for surprise inspections and sanctions.

It is now 2023, and during the 48 years the Biological Weapons Convention has been in force the wall it was supposed to build against the development, production, and use of biological weapons has been steadily eroded. Meanwhile, especially since the 2001 anthrax letters, nations (with the US at the forefront) have been building up their “biodefense” and “pandemic preparedness” capacities.

Under the guise of preparing their defenses against biowarfare and pandemics, nations have conducted “dual-use” (both offensive and defensive) research and development, which has led to the creation of more deadly and more transmissible microorganisms. And employing new verbiage to shield this effort from scrutiny, biological warfare research was renamed as “gain-of-function” research.

How Would You Create a Biological Warfare Agent?

Gain-of-function is a euphemism for biological warfare research aka germ warfare research. It is so risky that funding it was banned by the US government (but only for SARS coronaviruses and avian flu viruses) in 2014 after a public outcry from hundreds of scientists. Then in 2017 Drs. Tony Fauci and Francis Collins lifted the moratorium, with no real safeguards in place. Fauci and Collins even had the temerity to publish their opinion that the risk from this gain-of-function research was ‘worth it.’

What does gain-of-function actually mean? It means that scientists are able to use a variety of techniques to turn ordinary or pathogenic viruses and bacteria into biological weapons. The research is justified by the claim that scientists can get out ahead of nature and predict what might be a future pandemic threat, or what another nation might use as a bioweapon. The functions gained by the viruses or other microorganisms to turn them into biological warfare agents consist of two categories: enhanced transmission or enhanced pathogenicity (illness severity).

1) improved transmissibility may result from:

a) needing fewer viral or bacterial copies to cause infection,

b) causing the generation of higher viral or bacterial titers,

c) a new mode of spread, such as adding airborne transmission to a virus that previously only spread through bodily fluids,

d) expanded range of susceptible organs (aka tissue tropism); for example, not only respiratory secretions but also urine or stool might transmit the virus, which was found in SARS-CoV-2,

e) expanded host range; for example, instead of infecting bats, the virus is passaged through humanized mice and thus acclimated to the human ACE-2 receptor, which was found in SARS-CoV-2,

f) improved cellular entry; for example, by adding a furin cleavage site, which was found in SARS-CoV-2,

2) increased pathogenicity, so instead of causing a milder illness, the pathogen would be made to cause severe illness or death, using various methods. SARS-CoV-2 had unusual homologies (identical short segments) to human tissues and the HIV virus, which may have caused or contributed to the late autoimmune stage of illness, impaired immune response and ‘long COVID.’

Funding for (Natural) Pandemics, Including Yearly Influenza, Was Lumped Together with Biological Defense Funding

Perhaps the comingling of funding was designed to make it harder for Congress and the public to understand what was being funded, and how much taxpayer funding was going to gain-of-function work, which might lead them to question why it was being done at all, given its prohibition in the Biological Weapons Convention, and additional questions about its value. Former CDC Director Robert Redfield, a physician and virologist, told Congress in March of 2023 that gain-of-function research had not resulted in a single beneficial drug, vaccine, or therapeutic to his knowledge.

Nonprofits and universities like EcoHealth Alliance and its affiliated University of California, Davis veterinary school were used as intermediaries to obscure the fact that US taxpayers were supporting scientists in dozens of foreign countries, including China, for research that included gain-of-function work on coronaviruses.

Perhaps to keep the lucrative funding going, fears about pandemics have been deliberately amplified over the past several decades. The federal government has been spending huge sums on pandemic preparedness over the past 20 years, routing it through many federal and state agencies. President Biden’s proposed 2024 budget requested “$20 billion in mandatory funding across DHHS for pandemic preparedness” while the DHS, DOD, and the State Department have additional budgets for pandemic preparedness for both domestic and international spending.

Although the 20th century experienced only 3 significant pandemics (the Spanish flu of 1918-19 and 2 influenza pandemics in 1957 and 1968) the mass media have presented us with almost non-stop pandemics during the 21st century: SARS-1 (2002-3), avian flu (2004-on), swine flu (2009-10), Ebola (2014, 2018-19), Zika (2016), COVID (2020-2023), and monkeypox (2022-23). And we are incessantly told that more are coming, and that they are likely to be worse.

We have been assaulted with warnings and threats for over 2 decades to induce a deep fear of infectious diseases. It seems to have worked.

The genomes of both SARS-CoV-2 and the 2022 monkeypox (MPOX) virus lead to suspicion that both were bioengineered pathogens originating in laboratories. The group of virologists assembled by Drs. Fauci and Farrar identified 6 unusual (probably lab-derived) parts of the SARS-CoV-2 genome as early as February 1, 2020 and more have been suggested subsequently.

I do not know if these viruses leaked accidentally or were deliberately released, but I am leaning toward the conclusion that both were deliberately released, based on the locations where they first appeared, the well-orchestrated but faked videos rolled out by the mass media for COVID, and the illogical and harmful official responses to each. In neither case was the public given accurate information about the infections’ severity or treatments, and the responses by Western governments never made scientific sense. Why wouldn’t you treat cases early, the way doctors treat everything else? It seemed that our governments were trading on the fact that few people knew enough about viruses and therapeutics to make independent assessments about the information they were being fed.

Yet by August 2021, there was no corresponding course correction. Instead, the federal government doubled down, imposing vaccine mandates on 100 million Americans in September 2021 in spite of  ‘the science.’ There has been no accurate statement yet from any federal agency about the lack of utility of masking for an airborne virus (which is probably why the US government and WHO delayed acknowledging airborne spread by COVID for 18 months), the lack of efficacy of social distancing for an airborne virus, and the risks and poor efficacy of 2 dangerous oral drugs (paxlovid and molnupiravir) purchased by the US government for COVID treatment, even without a doctor’s prescription.

Never have any federal agencies acknowledged the truth about the COVID vaccines’ safety and efficacy. Instead, the CDC turns definitional and statistical cartwheels so it can continue to claim they are “safe and effective.” Even worse, with all that we know, a third generation COVID vaccine is to be rolled out for this fall and the FDA has announced that yearly boosters are planned.

All this goes on, even a year after we learned (with continuing corroborations) that children and working age adults are dying at rates 25 percent or more above the expected averages, and the vascular side effects of vaccination are the only reasonable explanation.

Maiming with Myocarditis

Both of the two US monkeypox/smallpox vaccines (Jynneos and ACAM2000) are known to cause myocarditis, as do all 3 COVID vaccines currently available in the US: the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the Novavax vaccine. The Novavax vaccine was first associated with myocarditis during its clinical trial, but this was downplayed and it was authorized and rolled out anyway, intended for those who refused the mRNA vaccines due to the use of fetal tissue in their manufacture.

Here is what the FDA’s reviewers wrote about the cardiac side effects noted in the Jynneos clinical trials:

Up to 18.4% of subjects in 2 studies developed post-vaccination elevation of troponin [a cardiac muscle enzyme signifying cardiac damage]. However, all of these troponin elevations were asymptomatic and without a clinically associated event or other sign of myopericarditis. p. 198

The applicant has committed to conduct an observational, post-marketing study as part of their routine PVP. The sponsor will collect data on cardiac events that occur and are assessed as a routine part of medical care. p. 200

In other words, while the only way to cause an elevated troponin level is to break down cardiac muscle cells, the FDA did not require a specific study to evaluate the extent of cardiac damage that might be caused by Jynneos when it issued the vaccine’s 2019 license.

How frequently does myocarditis occur after these vaccines?  If you use elevated cardiac enzymes as your marker, ACAM2000 caused this in one in thirty people receiving it for the first time. If you use other measures like abnormal cardiac MRI or echo, according to the CDC it occurs in one in 175 vaccinees. I have not seen a study with rates of myocarditis for Jynneos, but there was an unspecified elevation of cardiac enzymes in 10 percent and 18 percent of Jynneos recipients in two unpublished prelicensure studies available on the FDA website. My guess for the mRNA COVID vaccines is that they cause myocarditis in this general range (between 1 in 10 and 1 in 250 recipients per dose), while the vast majority of cases are probably asymptomatic and never diagnosed.

Why would our governments push 5 separate vaccines all known to cause myocarditis on young people who are at extremely low risk from COVID?  Monkeypox simply causes a few eruptions (like shingles) for 1-4 weeks unless the infected person is severely immunocompromised.

Why dangerous vaccines are being pushed on young, low-risk populations for whom the health risks from vaccination are considerably greater than the risks from the disease is an important question. It does not make medical sense. Especially for a vaccine that probably does not work. 

Jynneos didn’t prevent infection in the monkeys in whom it was tested, nor did it do well in people. And the CDC has failed to publish its trial of Jynneos vaccine in the ~1,600 Congolese healthcare workers in whom the CDC tested it for efficacy and safety in 2017. The CDC announced it was conducting the trial, and posted it to clinicaltrials.gov as required, but has not informed its advisory committee that reviewed the vaccine, nor the public, of the trial’s results. We can safely guess that had the vaccine been safe and effective in its only field trial, CDC’s advisors and the public would have been informed.

There can be no question about it: our health agencies are guilty of malfeasance, misrepresentation, and deliberate infliction of harm on their own populations.

The health agencies first incited terror with apocalyptic predictions; then demanded patients be medically neglected; and finally enforced vaccinations and treatments that were tantamount to malpractice. 

COVID Vaccines: The Chicken or the Egg?

The health authorities could have just been ignorant—that could possibly explain the first few months of the COVID vaccines’ rollout. But once they figured out, and even announced in August 2021 that the vaccines did not prevent catching COVID or transmitting it, why did our health authorities still push COVID vaccines on low-risk populations who were clearly at greater risk from a vaccine side effect than from COVID? Particularly as time went on and newer variants were less and less virulent?

Once you acknowledge these basic facts, you realize that maybe the vaccines were not made for the pandemic, and instead the pandemic was made to roll out the vaccines. While we cannot be certain, we should at least be suspicious. And the fact that the US contracted for 10 doses per person (review purchases here, here, here, here and here) and so did the European Union (here and here) and Canada should make us even more suspicious–there is no justification for agreeing to purchase so many doses for vaccines at a time when the vaccines’ ability to prevent infection and transmission was questionable, and its safety suspect or worrying.

Why would governments want ten doses per person? Three maybe. But ten? Even if yearly boosters were expected, there was no reason to sign contracts for enough vaccine for the next nine years for a rapidly mutating virus. Australia bought 8 doses per person. By December 20, 2020 New Zealand had secured triple the vaccines it needed, and offered to share some with nearby nations. No one has come forward to explain the reason for these excessive purchases.

Furthermore, you don’t need a vaccine passport (aka digital ID, aka a phone app that in Europe included a mechanism for an electronic payments system) unless you are giving out regular boosters. Were the vaccines conceived of as the means for putting our vaccinations, health records, official documents–and most importantly, shifting our financial transactions online, all managed on a phone app? This would be an attack on privacy as well as the enabling step to a social credit system in the West. Interestingly, vaccine passports were already being planned for the European Union by 2018.

A Pandemic Treaty and Amendments:  Brought to You by the Same People who Mismanaged the Past 3 Years, to Save Us from Themselves?

The same US and other governments and the WHO that imposed draconian measures on citizens to force us to be vaccinated and take dangerous, expensive, experimental drugs, withheld effective treatments, and refused to tell us that most people who required ICU care for COVID were vitamin D-deficient and that taking vitamin D would lessen COVID’s severity–decided in 2021 we suddenly needed an international pandemic treaty. Why? To prevent and ameliorate future pandemics or biological warfare events… so we would not suffer again as we did with the COVID pandemic, they insisted. The WHO would manage it.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the words, “I’m from the WHO, and I’m here to help” should be the most terrifying words in the English language after the COVID fiasco.

What the WHO and our governments conveniently failed to mention is that we suffered so badly because of their medical mismanagement and our governments’ merciless economic shutdowns and mismanagement. According to the World Bank, an additional 70 million people were forced into extreme poverty in 2020 alone. This was due to policies issued by our nations’ rulers, their elite advisers and the World Health Organization, which came out with guidance to shut down economic activity that most nations adopted without question. The WHO is acutely aware of the consequences of economic lockdowns, having published the following:

Malnutrition persisted in all its forms, with children paying a high price: in 2020, over 149 million under-fives are estimated to have been stunted, or too short for their age; more than 45 million – wasted, or too thin for their height…

Starvation may have killed more people than COVID, and they were disproportionately the youngest, rather than the oldest. Yet the WHO prattles on about equity, diversity, and solidarity—having itself caused the worst food crisis in our lifetime, which was not due to nature but was man-made.

How can anyone take seriously claims by the same officials who mishandled COVID that they want to spare us from another medical and economic disaster–by using the same strategies they applied to COVID, after they masterminded the last disaster? And the fact that no governments or health officials have admitted their errors should convince us never to let them manage anything ever again. Why would we let them draw up an international treaty and new amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (IHR) that will bind our governments to obey the WHO’s dictates forever?

Those dictates, by the way, include vaccine development at breakneck speed, the power to enforce which drugs we will be directed to use, and which drugs will be prohibited, and the requirement to monitor media for “misinformation” and impose censorship so that only the WHO’s public health narrative will be conveyed to the public.

The WHO’s Pandemic Treaty Draft Requires the Sharing of Potential Pandemic Pathogens. This Is a Euphemism for Bioweapons Proliferation.

Obviously, the best way to spare us from another pandemic is to immediately stop funding gain-of-function (GOF) research and get rid of all existing GOF organisms. Let all nations build huge bonfires and burn up their evil creations at the same time, while allowing other nations to inspect their biological facilities and records.

But the WHO in its June 2023 Bureau Text of the Draft Pandemic Treaty has a plan that is the exact opposite of this. In the WHO’s draft treaty, which most nations’ rulers appear to have bought into, all governments will share all viruses and bacteria they come up with that are determined to have “pandemic potential” — share them with the WHO and other governments, putting their genomic sequences online. No, I am not making this up. (See screenshots from the draft treaty below.) Then the WHO and all the Fauci’s of the world would gain access to all the newly identified dangerous viruses. Would hackers also gain access to the sequences? This pandemic plan should make you feel anything but secure.

Fauci, Tedros, and their ilk at the WHO, and those managing biodefense and biomedical research for nation states are on one side, the side that gains access to ever more potential biological weapons, and the rest of us are on the other, at their mercy.

This poorly conceptualized plan used to be called proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—and it is almost certainly illegal. (For example, see Security Council resolution 1540 adopted in 2004.) But this is the plan of the WHO and of many of our leaders. Governments will all share the weapons.

The Genomic Sequencing Conundrum

And governments are to commit to building biolabs that must include genomic sequencing. No explanation has been forthcoming about why each nation needs to install its own genome sequencing laboratories. Of course, they would sequence the many viruses that will be detected as a result of the pathogen surveillance activities nations must perform, according to the WHO treaty draft. But the same techniques can be used to sequence human genomes. The fact that the EU, UK, and US are currently engaged in projects to sequence about 2 million of their citizens’ genomes provides a hint they may want to collect additional genomes of Africans, Asians, and others.

This might fly as simply sharing state-of-the-art science with our less-developed neighbors. But it is curious that there is so much emphasis on genomics, compared to the absence of any discussion about developing repurposed drugs for pandemics in either the draft treaty or IHR amendments. 

We must not forget that virtually all developed nations, in lockstep, restricted the use of safe generic hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and related drugs during the pandemic. In retrospect, the only logical explanation for this unprecedented action was to preserve the market for expensive patentable drugs and vaccines, and possibly to prolong the pandemic. 

US law only allows unlicensed, emergency use authorized (EUA) vaccines and drugs to be used if there is no adequate, approved (licensed) and available drug for the same purpose.  If the US government admitted that existing, approved drugs could prevent and/or treat COVID, it would need to immediately revoke all the EUA vaccines and drugs for COVID.  This is one explanation of why these drugs have been vilified and suppressed by our state and federal agencies.

Genomes offer great potential profits, as well as providing the substrate for transhumanist experiments that could include designer babies among other things.

The latest version (aka the WHO Bureau draft) of the pandemic treaty can be accessed here. I provide screenshots below to illustrate additional points.

Draft pages 10 and 11:

The WHO Treaty Draft Incentivizes Gain-of-Function Research

What else is in the Treaty? Gain-of-Function research (designed to make microorganisms more transmissible or more pathogenic) is explicitly incentivized by the treaty. The treaty demands that administrative hurdles to such research must be minimized, while unintended consequences (aka pandemics) should be prevented. But of course, when you perform this type of research, some leaks and losses of agents will always occur. The joint CDC-USDA Federal Select Agent Program (FSAP) keeps track of research on potential pandemic pathogens.  As the FSAP describes itself,

“The Federal Select Agent Program oversees the possession, use and transfer of biological select agents and toxins, which have the potential to pose a severe threat to public, animal or plant health or to animal or plant products.”

FSAP reports reveal that there are about 200 accidents or escapes yearly from labs situated in the US.  (There is no accounting of accidents outside the US.)  The FSAP annual report for 2021 notes: 

“In 2021, FSAP received 8 reports of losses, 177 reports of releases, and no reports of thefts.”

While scientists do their best to protect themselves and maintain lab safety, research on deadly pathogens simply cannot be performed without risks both to the researchers and the outside world.

Draft page 14:

Vaccines Will be Rolled Out Speedily Under Abbreviated Future Testing Protocols 

Vaccines normally take 10-15 years to be developed. In case you thought the COVID vaccines took too long to be rolled out (326 days from availability of the viral sequence to authorization of the first US COVID vaccine) the WHO treaty draft has plans to shorten testing. There will be new clinical trial platforms. Nations must increase clinical trial capacity. (Might that mean mandating people to be human subjects in out-of-the-way places like Africa, for example?) And there will be new “mechanisms to facilitate the rapid interpretation of data from clinical trials” as well as “strategies for managing liability risks.”

Draft page 14:

Vaccines Will be Rolled Out Speedily Under Abbreviated Future Testing Protocols

Manufacturer and Government Liability for Vaccine Injuries Must be “Managed”

Nations are supposed to use “existing relevant models” as a reference for compensation of injuries due to pandemic vaccines. Of course, most countries do not have vaccine injury compensation schemes, and when they do the benefits are usually minimal.

Is the US government’s program to be a model of what gets implemented internationally?

There is only one way under US law to obtain compensation for an injury sustained from an EUA product.  This is because under the PREP Act, lawsuits against manufacturers, government administrators and medical personnel administering vaccines and drugs are prohibited. 

The sole US government scheme for injuries due to COVID pandemic products is called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program or CICP.  It is extremely difficult to obtain any benefits through this program, even if your doctors assert that your injury resulted from an EUA product.  Therefore, few people bother to apply, and few are even aware the program exists. 

The statute of limitations for the CICP is a very brief twelve months, which means you must have documented that your injury was due to a vaccine or drug within 12 months of receiving the medical product.  This can be extremely difficult when the federal health agencies deny such injuries exist. 

Furthermore, the program will only pay for lost wages or health expenses that have not been covered by insurance.  The CICP is a “payor of last resort,” so if your health insurance covered your injury and your disability insurance covered lost wages, you are ineligible to collect benefits.  The CICP will provide no compensation for attorney fees, expert witnesses, document preparation or pain and suffering, although the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for childhood vaccine injuries pays those costs.  There is no time limit by which a case must be adjudicated, so most cases languish for years without a decision. The program is purely administrative, and decisions regarding eligibility for benefits are made by the DHHS.  There are no courts or judges and no published standards.

All pandemic EUA drugs and vaccines convey immunity from legal liability to their manufacturers and to everyone else involved in their use.

The CICP has compensated exactly 4 (yes, four) of the 12,000 applications for COVID product-related injuries as of August 1, 2023.  The total amount paid out for the first 3 of the 4 compensated claims was $4,635, or less than $1,600 apiece, on average.

Slightly more than 1,000 claims have been adjudicated, while 10,887 are pending review.

In summary, 2% of the COVID cases reviewed by the CICP were deemed eligible for benefits, while only 0.2% of all COVID injury applications have received a payment from the CICP.  No wonder so few people even bother to apply.

Regulatory Strengthening

The pandemic treaty draft also demands weakening the strict national regulation of medical drugs and vaccines during emergencies, under the rubric of “Regulatory Strengthening.” As announced in the UK recently, ‘trusted partner’ approvals will be used to speed licensure of medical products. This means that if a drug or vaccine has been approved by a partner country, the UK can adopt the partner’s decision on licensure and bypass an independent analysis by UK regulators.  What this does is move nations in the direction of a single regulatory agency approval or authorization, which would be immediately adopted by other nations. (p 25). 

 

One might predict that the least rigorous regulator would quickly be selected by product manufacturers to make licensing decisions on their products.  Most nations’ drug regulators are funded by pharmaceutical firms, who pay for the evaluations.  It should come as no surprise that the % of their budgets that is funded by pharma is directly related to the % of drug approvals issued.  We might even see the prices of drug evaluations paid by Pharma go up as the quality of the evaluations goes down.  Below is fascinating information on the regulators of drugs and vaccines around the world and the public versus private funding they receive.

Next Up: Vaccines Developed in 100 Days

A plan to develop vaccines in 100 days and have them manufactured in 30 additional days has been widely publicized by the vaccine nonprofit CEPI, founded in 2017 by Bill Gates and Dr. Jeremy Farrar, who is now the WHO’s Chief Scientist. The plan has been echoed by the US and UK governments and received some buy-in from the G7 in 2021. This time frame would only allow for very brief testing in humans, or would limit testing to animals. Why would any country sign up for this?  Is this what we want, to vaccinate the entire world, then find out the bad news later?

The plan furthermore depends on the vaccines only being tested for their ability to induce antibodies, which is termed immunogenicity, rather than being shown to actually prevent disease, at least during the initial vaccine rollout. My understanding of FDA regulation is that antibody levels are not an acceptable surrogate for immunity unless they have been shown to correlate with protection.

However, the FDA’s recent vaccine decisions have ignored that requirement and vaccines are now being approved based on antibody levels alone. But the induction of antibodies does not tell you whether they prevent infection.  Sometimes they have promoted infection.

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee has asked for better indicators of efficacy than just antibody levels for COVID vaccines.  But despite lacking such data, the advisers voted anyway to approve or authorize vaccines over the past year, without knowing whether they actually work.  I learned this from watching the FDA vaccine advisory meetings, as I provide a live blog of them and often detailed summaries on my substack.

We all know how long it took for the public to become aware that the COVID vaccines failed to prevent transmission and only prevented cases for a period of weeks to months. The US government has still not officially admitted this, even though CDC Director Rochelle Walensky told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer the truth about transmission on August 6, 2021, 8 months after the Pfizer vaccine launched. How long will it take to learn whether vaccines launched in 100 days actually work?

You Can’t Do Safety Testing for 100 Day Vaccines

It is really important for the public to understand that safety testing can only be accomplished in human beings, as animals react differently to drugs and vaccines than humans do. Therefore, limited testing in animals would mean there was no real safety testing. But testing vaccines in humans for only short periods is also unacceptable.

Testing vaccines during brief trials in humans (the Pfizer trials only followed a minority of subjects for a median of two months when the vaccine was authorized) allowed COVID vaccines to be rolled out without the public being aware they could cause any serious side effects, let alone myocarditis and sudden deaths.

You Can’t Assess the Soundness of the Manufacturing Process for 100 Day Vaccines

Finally, following this rapid manufacturing plan, thorough testing for potential failures in the manufacturing process could not be performed.  Scaling up from producing pilot lots to large scale manufacturing requires a whole new evaluation.  With the current plan for far-flung, decentralized manufacturing facilities that are said to be necessary to achieve vaccine equity for all, there are nowhere near enough regulators who know how to inspect vaccine manufacturers.

Will the WHO Respect Human Rights?

The need to respect “human rights, dignity, and freedom of persons” is embedded in the current International Health Regulations (IHR), as well as other UN treaties. However, the language guaranteeing human rights, dignity, and freedom of persons was peremptorily removed from the proposed IHR Amendments, without explanation. The removal of human rights protections did not go unnoticed, and the WHO has been widely criticized for it.

The WHO apparently is responding to these criticisms, and so the language guaranteeing human rights that was removed from the drafts of the International Health Regulations has been inserted into the newest version of the pandemic treaty.

Conclusions

As long predicted by science fiction, our biotech, cyber and surveillance achievements have finally gotten away from us. We can produce vaccines in 100 days and manufacture them in 130 days–but there will be no guarantees that the products will be safe, effective, or adequately manufactured. And we can expect large profits, but no consequences for the manufacturers from any injuries to the public.

If we do face another pandemic, being able to access repurposed drugs will be the only rapid and safe solution. Yet existing drugs have been deliberately excluded by the WHO’s IHR amendments and treaty draft, because no one gets rich off non-patentable and available old drugs.

Our genes can be decoded by genomic sequencing, and the fruits of personalized medicine made available to us. Or perhaps our genes will be patented and sold to the highest bidder. We might be able to select for special characteristics in our children, but at the same time, a human underclass of test-tube babies could be created.

Our electronic communications can be completely monitored and censored, and uniform messaging can be imposed on everyone. But for whom would this be good?

New biological weapons will be discovered or engineered. They will be shared. We can hope the GOF research that studied and created them will speed up the development of vaccines and therapeutics for the public, but it never has yet.  

Who really benefits from the gain-of-function scam?  Those who seek to control us.  It is the public who pays the cost of the research, then pays again for the accidents and deliberate leaks. Wouldn’t it be better to end gain-of-function research entirely, by restricting funding or closing the laboratories, rather than encouraging the proliferation of biological weapons?  If we want a decent future, it is crucial that we control these weapons instead of proliferating them. 

These are important issues for all of humanity, and I encourage everyone to pay attention to them, think about them, and become part of this very important conversation.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. 

Dr. Meryl Nass is a National Merit Scholar. She has entered MIT before completing high school; BS Biology 1974, MD 1980, Board Certified in Internal Medicine 1986. She has practiced medicine for 41 years. Traveled to over 50 countries, has 2 children, single parent. She was the first person in the world to study an epidemic and show it was due to biological warfare.

Selected publications on Biological Warfare, beginning 1991:

• The Labyrinth of Biological Defense
• Anthrax Epizootic in Zimbabwe, 1978-1980: Due to Deliberate Spread?
• Can Biological, Toxin, and Chemical Warfare be Eliminated?
• Anthrax Vaccine:: Model of a Response to the Biological Warfare Threat

Featured image is from Brownstone Institute

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

April 20, 2023 – 34 year old Kim Kardashian look-alike model Christina Ashten Gourkani, died from cardiac arrest right after a minor cosmetic surgery (silicone implants into her buttocks).

The statement went on to describe the harrowing moment someone called Christina’s family at 4.30am screaming, ‘Ashten is dying, Ashten is dying!’

“The family spokesperson then described the ‘living nightmare’ of watching her health decline in hospital following her cardiac arrest.”

Aug. 26, 2023 – 34 year old Suellen Pamela de Moura from the city of Ribeirao Preto, Brazil, died of blood clots (pulmonary embolism) three days after she went through a tummy tucking procedure on Wednesday August 23.

The 34-year-old woman was reportedly discharged the day after the surgery, and began developing shortness of breath and chest pain two days later on Friday, August 25. She was then reportedly rushed to the hospital’s Emergency Care Unit (UPA), where medics diagnosed her with pulmonary embolism.

Aug. 9, 2023 – Etobicoke, ON – 28 year old Riley Connor died suddenly after “unexpected heart surgery complications.”

Aug. 4, 2023 – Franklin, NC – Ben Ledford had surgery to repair a disc in his back, the surgery was successful but he did not wake upon removal of anesthesia.

July 28, 2023 – Espoo, Finland – 49 year old Timo Hirvonen, Finnish professional hockey player died suddenly July 28, 2023 from complications of surgery for cancer.

July 19, 2023 – Peabody, MA – 40 year old Police Officer Henry Breckenridge died suddenly on July 19, 2023 from complications that arose from a “non-emergency” surgery.

June 30, 2023 – New Zealand motorbike racer 28 year old Damon Rees died suddenly on June 30, 2023 after battling a “sudden medical condition”. “He had surgery but was doing well” the day before he died suddenly.

May 31, 2023 – 32 yo social media star Jacklyn Smith, aka Jacky Oh, died suddenly on May 31, 2023. She was found unresponsive in Miami hotel room on evening of May 31, 2023 after having cosmetic surgery.

May 21, 2023 – Brisbane, Australia – 26 year old Dani Duchatel died suddenly in front of her family while playing cards after dinner, on May 21, 2023. Doctors believe a blood clot from a recent operation on her leg travelled to her lung causing a pulmonary embolism.

April 1, 2023 – UK – 28 year old Shannon Bowe, died during an operation to insert a band which reduces the size of the stomach, a surgery she did in Turkey on April 1, 2023.

Mar. 17, 2023 – UK – TikTok Star 30 year old Jehane Thomas died suddenly. She had been suffering from crippling headaches for several months, was diagnosed with Optic Neuritis, went to have an unspecified surgery, stayed in hospital for a week, was discharged but soon returned with migraines and then died.

Feb. 19, 2023 – Liverpool, UK – 35 year old Sam Mercer died suddenly on Feb.19, 2023. He was at home recovering from surgery on Feb.14 for a snapped femur.

Jan. 28, 2023 – 21 year old university student Karen Julieth Cárdenas Uribe had rhinoplasty surgery in Colombia. She fainted as she arrived home, rushed back to hospital where they found her lungs were full of blood. She died after 6 cardiac arrests on Jan. 28, 2023.

Nov. 30, 2022 – Boulder, CO – Tom Day died suddenly and unexpectedly after making significant gains in his recovery from heart surgery a few weeks prior.

Aug. 25, 2022 – Agoura Hills, CA – 15 year old Carter Stone, football player at Agoura High School went into cardiac arrest during routine shoulder surgery after doctors found tumor on his heart, undiagnosed T-cell leukemia. He died on Aug. 25, 2022.

Aug. 22, 2022 – 48 year old Keith Carrington, beloved Principal at North Division High School and Security Guard for the Milwaukee Bucks, died suddenly of sepsis while recovering from foot surgery.

My Take… 

Cosmetic procedures are generally associated with increased risks of postoperative pulmonary embolism. (Kalmar et al)(Jiangwei Kong)

However, how does one explain sudden deaths of so many young people after a minor surgery?

I am seeing this same phenomenon in pregnant women during and shortly after giving birth. Sudden, unexpected deaths. Mostly blood clots but also cardiac arrests.

Doctors are NOT talking about this phenomenon.

I hypothesize that COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated individuals may be at significantly HIGHER risk of peri-operative and post-operative complications, most of which will be related to blood clotting problems that doctors are currently not recognizing.

UK government data (UK Dept of Work & Pensions) clearly shows skyrocketing blood clotting problems.

2022 Hematological Disabilities: +522%

• Blood clotting disorders +162%
• platelet disorders +221%
• Blood disorders +137%

*

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Biden administration is reportedly close to authorizing yet another weapons system for Ukraine that it had previously ruled out. According to ABC News and the Financial Times, the US will send Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, a high priority for Kiev and its most hawkish backers. The long-range missiles, which travel up to 190 miles, would bolster Ukraine’s capacity to hit Crimea and possibly mainland Russia.

The White House previously invoked that very capability to rule out the ATACMS as too dangerous an escalation. As National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan explained in June 2022, President Biden was “not prepared to provide” long-range missiles, given the “key goal” of avoiding “the road towards a third world war.”

Just over one year later, the road towards a third world war is no longer closed.

Helping matters is what ABC News describes as “a surprising discovery”: according to two US officials, the US “has found it has more ATACMS in its inventory than originally assessed.”

The “surprising discovery” for the war effort is reminiscent of another fortuitous find. In June, the Pentagon claimed that an “accounting error” had freed up more than $6.2 billion in new funds to buy weapons for Ukraine.

It will be of no surprise to anyone who has followed the Ukraine proxy war that the Biden administration is once again crossing its own red line. From the start, the White House has publicly resisted sending major weapons systems only to later relent. The arsenal of rejected-turned-authorized weapons includes HIMARS rocket artillery, Patriot missiles, Abrams tanks, F-16 fighter jets, cluster munitions, and depleted uranium.

The threat of world war has not changed. Instead, by supplying just enough weapons to continue the fight, the US can achieve its primary aim: not help defend Ukraine and end the war, but use Ukraine to “lock Russia in a quagmire” that will leave Moscow “weakened” or even regime changed.

As Edward Stringer, ex-head of operations for the UK Defense Staff, put it, the NATO weapons supply has been a “drip-feed” that offers “just enough for Ukraine not to lose,” and ultimately amounts to “just prolonging the war.”

At the NATO summit in Lithuania this past June, Western officials admitted that their policies fuel an endless fight. According to the New York Times, “several American and European officials acknowledged” that their “commitments” to Ukraine “make it all the more difficult to begin any real cease-fire or armistice negotiations.” Additionally, US-led “promises of Ukraine’s eventual accession to NATO — after the war is over —create a strong incentive for Moscow to hang onto any Ukrainian territory it can and to keep the conflict alive.”

To keep the conflict alive, the Biden administration is also backtracking on its prior vow to limit Ukrainian attacks inside Russia. Back in June 2022 – the same month as his colleague Sullivan ruled out ATACMS — Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared that Ukraine has “given us assurances that they will not use” US multiple-launch rocket systems “against targets on Russian territory.” Fast forward to today, and Blinken is shrugging off the possibility that the even more powerful ATACMS will hit those very targets. “It’s their decision, not ours,” Blinken told CNN.

Even Blinken’s tepid deferral was quickly contradicted. Speaking remotely to a conference in Kiev, Victoria Nuland, the Acting Deputy Secretary of State, said that one “axis” of current US strategy is to help Ukraine “have what it needs to be able to put some of Russia’s most precious assets at risk” – an apparent green-light for striking assets deep inside of Russia.

Blinken’s claim is additionally contradicted by established battlefield protocol. When Ukrainian forces use advanced US-provided rocket systems, the Washington Post reported in February, they “require coordinates provided or confirmed by the United States and its allies for the vast majority of strikes.” Accordingly, Ukraine “usually chooses not to strike without U.S. confirmation.”

To complement their plans to strike “Russia’s most precious assets”, the White House is claiming that Ukraine’s faltering counteroffensive is in fact a growing success. The Ukrainian military, Blinken claims, has made “real progress in recent weeks.” And overall, he asserts, “Ukraine has taken back more than 50 percent of the territory that Russia seized from it since February 2022.”

It is unclear where Blinken is seeing this “real progress” and seismic territorial reconquest. As one senior Western official told the New York Times, Ukraine’s most successful advances of late, “while noteworthy, do not yet represent a major operational breakthrough.” And according to the Washington Post, Russia has gone from controlling a high of 51,000 square miles of Ukrainian territory in March 2022, to 41,000 square miles today – a Ukrainian recapture rate of about 20 percent.

To continue the Ukraine war, therefore, the Biden administration is sending weapons systems that it had previously ruled out; ignoring its own stated pledge to restrict their targets; and offering a deceptively optimistic assessment of Ukraine’s progress to date.

Perhaps, as always, the prevailing strategy will bear fruit, and Ukraine will expel Russian forces without having to make any agreement with Moscow or allied Donbas rebels. Alternatively, Ukraine will continue to sacrifice countless lives as it draws yet another dangerous infusion from Washington’s war-prolonging drip-feed.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: An ATACMS missile being launched from an M270 MLRS (Licensed under the Public Domain)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The reality of the West’s trademark current foreign policy – marketed for the past two decades under the principle of a “Responsibility to Protect” – is all too visible amid Libya’s flood wreckage.

Many thousands are dead or missing in the port of Derna after two dams protecting the city burst this week as they were battered by Storm Daniel. Vast swaths of housing in the region, including in Benghazi, west of Derna, lie in ruins. 

The storm itself is seen as further proof of a mounting climate crisis, rapidly changing weather patterns across the globe and making disasters like Derna’s flooding more likely.

But the extent of the calamity cannot simply be ascribed to climate change. Though the media coverage studiously obscures this point, Britain’s actions 12 years ago – when it trumpeted its humanitarian concern for Libya – are intimately tied to Derna’s current suffering.  

The failing dams and faltering relief efforts, observers correctly point out, are the result of a power vacuum in Libya. There is no central authority capable of governing the country.

But there are reasons Libya is so ill-equipped to deal with a catastrophe. And the West is deeply implicated.

Avoiding mention of those reasons, as Western coverage is doing, leaves audiences with a false and dangerous impression: that something lacking in Libyans, or maybe Arabs and Africans, makes them inherently incapable of properly running their own affairs.

‘Dysfunctional Politics’

Libya is indeed a mess, overrun by feuding militias, with two rival governments vying for power amid a general air of lawlessness. Even before this latest disaster, the country’s rival rulers struggled to cope with the day-to-day management of their citizens’ lives. 

Or as Frank Gardner, the BBC’s security correspondent, observed of the crisis, it has been “compounded by Libya’s dysfunctional politics, a country so rich in natural resources and yet so desperately lacking the security and stability that its people crave.”

Meanwhile, Quentin Sommerville, the corporation’s Middle East correspondent, opined that “there are many countries that could have handled flooding on this scale, but not one as troubled as Libya. It has had a long and painful decade: civil wars, local conflicts, and Derna itself was taken over by the Islamic State group – the city was bombed to remove them from there.” 

According to Sommerville, experts had previously warned that the dams were in poor shape, adding: “Amid Libya’s chaos, those warnings went unheeded.”

“Dysfunction”, “chaos”, “troubled”, “unstable”, “fractured”. The BBC and the rest of Britain’s establishment media have been firing out these terms like bullets from a machine gun.

Libya is what analysts like to term a failed state. But what the BBC and the rest of the Western media have carefully avoided mentioning is why.

Regime Change

More than decade ago, Libya had a strong, competent, if highly repressive, central government under dictator Muammar Gaddafi. The country’s oil revenues were used to provide free public education and health care. As a result, Libya had one of the highest literacy rates and average per capita incomes in Africa.

That all changed in 2011, when Nato sought to exploit the “Responsibility to Protect” principle, or R2P for short, to justify carrying out what amounted to an illegal regime-change operation off the back of an insurgency.

The supposed “humanitarian intervention” in Libya was a more sophisticated version of the West’s similarly illegal, “Shock and Awe” invasion of Iraq, eight years earlier.

Then, the US and Britain launched a war of aggression without United Nations authorisation, based on an entirely bogus story that Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, possessed hidden stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

In Libya’s case, by contrast, Britain and France, backed by the United States, were more successful in winning a UN security resolution, with a narrow remit to protect civilian populations from the threat of attack and impose a no-fly zone. 

Armed with the resolution, the West manufactured a pretext to meddle directly in Libya. They claimed that Gaddafi was preparing a massacre of civilians in the rebel-stronghold of Benghazi. The lurid story even suggested that Gaddafi was arming troops with Viagra to encourage them to commit mass rape. 

As with Iraq’s WMD, the claims were entirely unsubstantiated, as a report by the British parliament’s foreign affairs committee concluded five years later, in 2016. Its investigation found:

“The proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence.”

The report added:

“Gaddafi’s 40-year record of appalling human rights abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians.”

Bombing Campaigns

That, however, was not a view prime minister David Cameron or the media shared with the public when British MPs voted to back a war on Libya in March 2011. Only 13 legislators dissented.  

Among them, notably, was Jeremy Corbyn, then a backbencher who four years later would be elected Labour opposition leader, triggering an extended smear campaign against him by the British establishment. 

When Nato launched its “humanitarian intervention”, the death toll from Libya’s fighting was estimated by the UN at no more than 2,000. Six months later, it was assessed at nearer 50,000, with civilians comprising a significant proportion of the casualties. 

Citing its R2P mission, Nato flagrantly exceeded the terms of the UN resolution, which specifically excluded “a foreign occupation force of any form”. Western troops, including British special forces, operated on the ground, coordinating the actions of rebel militias opposed to Gaddafi. 

Meanwhile, Nato planes ran bombing campaigns that often killed the very civilians Nato claimed it was there to protect.

It was another illegal Western regime-overthrow operation – this one ending with the filming of Gaddafi being butchered on the street.

Slave Markets

The self-congratulatory mood among Britain’s political and media class, burnishing the West’s “humanitarian” credentials, was evident across the media.

An Observer editorial declared: “An honourable intervention. A hopeful future.” In the Daily Telegraph, David Owen, a former British foreign secretary, wrote: “We have proved in Libya that intervention can still work.”  

But had it worked?

Two years ago, even the arch-neoconservative Atlantic Council, the ultimate Washington insider think-tank, admitted:

“Libyans are poorer, in greater peril, and experience as much or more political repression in parts of the country compared to Gaddafi’s rule.” 

It added:

“Libya remains divided politically and in a state of festering civil war. Frequent oil production halts while lack of oil fields maintenance has cost the country billions of dollars in lost revenues.”

The idea that Nato was ever really concerned about the welfare of Libyans was given the lie the moment Gaddafi was slaughtered. The West immediately abandoned Libya to its ensuing civil war, what President Obama colourfully called a “shitshow”, and the media that had been so insistent on the humanitarian goals behind the “intervention” lost all interest in post-Gaddafi developments. 

Libya was soon overrun with warlords, becoming a country in which, as human rights groups warned, slave markets were once again flourishing. 

As the BBC’s Sommerville noted in passing, the vacuum left behind in places like Derna soon sucked in more violent and extremist groups like the head-choppers of Islamic State. 

Unreliable Allies

But parallel to the void of authority in Libya that has exposed its citizens to such suffering is the remarkable void at the heart of the West’s media coverage of the current flooding.

Floods in Libya, September 2023 (Source: ERCC – Emergency Response Coordination Centre / Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

No one wants to explain why Libya is so ill-prepared to deal with the disaster, why the country is so fractured and chaotic.

Just as no one wants to explain why the West’s invasion of Iraq on “humanitarian” grounds, and the disbanding of its army and police forces, led to more than a million Iraqis dead and millions more homeless and displaced. 

Or why the West allied with its erstwhile opponents – the jihadists of Islamic State and al-Qaeda – against the Syrian government, again causing millions to be displaced and dividing the country. 

Syria was as unprepared as Libya now is to deal with a large earthquake that hit its northern regions, along with southern Turkey, last February. 

This pattern repeats because it serves a useful end for a West led from Washington that seeks complete global hegemony and control of resources, or what its policymakers call full-spectrum dominance. 

Humanitarianism is the cover story – to keep Western publics docile – as the US and Nato allies target leaders of oil-rich states in the Middle East and North Africa that are viewed as unreliable or unpredictable, such as Libya’s Gadaffi and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.

A Wayward Leader

WikiLeaks’ release of US diplomatic cables in late 2010 reveals a picture of Washington’s mercurial relationship with Gaddafi – a trait paradoxically the US ambassador to Tripoli is recorded attributing to the Libyan leader.

Publicly, US officials were keen to cosy up to Gaddafi, offering him close security coordination against the very rebel forces they would soon be assisting in their regime-overthrow operation.

But other cables reveal deeper concerns at Gaddafi’s waywardness, including his ambitions to build a United States of Africa to control the continent’s resources and develop an independent foreign policy. 

Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa. And who has control over them, and profits from them, is centrally important to Western states.

The WikiLeaks cables recounted US, French, Spanish and Canadian oil firms being forced to renegotiate contracts on significantly less favourable terms, costing them many billions of dollars, while Russia and China were awarded new oil exploration options.

Still more worrying for US officials was the precedent Gaddafi had been setting, creating a “new paradigm for Libya that is playing out worldwide in a growing number of oil producing countries”. 

That precedent has been decisively overturned since Gaddafi’s demise. As Declassified reported, after biding their time, British oil giants BP and Shell returned to Libya’s oilfields last year.  

In 2018, Britain’s then ambassador to Libya, Frank Baker, wrote enthusiastically about how the UK was “helping to create a more permissible environment for trade and investment, and to uncover opportunities for British expertise to help Libya’s reconstruction”.

That contrasts with Gaddafi’s earlier moves to cultivate closer military and economic ties with Russia and China, including granting access to the port of Benghazi for the Russian fleet. In one cable from 2008, he is noted to have “voiced his satisfaction that Russia’s increased strength can serve as a necessary counterbalance to US power”. 

Submit or Pay

It was these factors that tipped the balance in Washington against Gaddafi’s continuing rule and encouraged the US to seize the opportunity to oust him by backing rebel forces.

The idea that Washington or Britain cared about the welfare of ordinary Libyans is disproved by a decade of indifference to their plight – culminating in the current suffering in Derna.

The West’s approach to Libya, as with Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, has been to prefer that it be sunk into a quagmire of division and instability than allow a strong leader to act defiantly, demand control over resources and establish alliances with enemy states – creating a precedent other states might follow.

Small states are left with a stark choice: submit or pay a heavy price.

Gaddafi was butchered in the street, the bloody images shared around the world. The suffering of ordinary Libyans over the past decade, in contrast, has taken place out of view.

Now with the disaster in Derna, their plight is in the spotlight. But with the help of Western media like the BBC, the reasons for their misery remain as murky as the flood waters.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jonathan Cook is the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at www.jonathan-cook.net

Featured image is from World Meteorological Organization

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Retired Ukrainian Major General Sergey Krivonos slammed Volodymyr Zelensky in an interview for presenting inexplicably optimistic reports on the situation at the front. In his words, Zelensky presents the situation “optimistically” even though the expert consensus, except among the most extremist corners in Ukraine and the West, is that the much-lauded counteroffensive has been a catastrophic failure. The failure of the counteroffensive, which has contributed to half a million Ukrainian deaths, will inevitably lead to an eventual diminishing of Western support for Ukraine as financing the war will be a major topic in next year’s US presidential election runup.

“The president speaks optimistically, but I don’t know who writes these texts for him. At certain times, I get worried,” said the retired general.

According to Krivonos, Zelensky speaks about what is happening at the front by using a tone as if Ukrainian forces have practically won. He added that Zelensky should not count on a process of demoralisation among Russian troops and warned that the Russian Army is experienced and well-trained.

The revelation by Krivonos comes after it was recently announced that Ukraine had already lost around half a million troops since the start of the Russian special military operation in February 2022. According to the advisor to the acting head of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DRP), Yan Gagin, the numbers were projected through intelligence, open data, and sources.

“We can understand these losses from the intelligence information we receive from our sources in Ukraine, and there are also public sources. For example, just a week ago, maybe a little more, in Ukraine, one of the mobile operators (MTS-Ukraine) posted an online video stating that around 400,000 recipients will never answer the phone again,” Gagin said.

The 400,000 figure is data from just one of several mobile operators in Ukraine. According to Gagin, the video was immediately hushed up and removed from everywhere, so the numbers are accurate.

He also recounted how Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, at a meeting of the European Parliament, when asked about 500,000 deaths in Ukraine, said defectively that they did not promise it would be easy. Effectively, he confirmed the number with his silence.

“Therefore, the number of about half a million Ukrainians who died during the conflict with the military, I think, is close to the truth,” Gagin emphasised.

These data do not include the losses represented by the injured. Among them are those who will return to the frontline and those who will be incapacitated and unable to fight.

It is recalled that earlier in the month, the British think tank Royal United Services Institute published a report claiming that rushing the counteroffensive is causing “unsustainable losses” on the Ukrainian side. According to the analysis prepared by two members of the London-based think-tank, Ukrainian forces face enormous equipment losses, while the training provided by the West is not adapted to the type of battle they are fighting against Russia.

The report observed that the counteroffensive was being affected, among other reasons, by the poor training of Ukrainian soldiers. In addition, the methods taught by NATO are designed for forces with configurations different from Ukrainian troops.

The failure of the counteroffensive and the high casualty rate will inevitably lead to harsh criticism of the ruling Democrat’s policy on Ukraine. Republicans in the US House of Representatives harshly criticised and will vote against the next aid package for Ukraine, saying they have “sound reasons” to question the policy.

Many Republicans consider the counteroffensive to have yielded little results at a high cost, which naturally leads to the view that more aid to Ukraine is a waste of money. A similar view is that more aid discourages Ukrainians from accepting an agreement and only prolongs an unnecessary expenditure.

For this reason, Western media is completely silent about the statements made by the likes of Krivonos and Gagin because it will be even more difficult than it currently is to maintain support for Ukraine as people will become horrified by the high death rate and the impossibility of winning the war. Gagin estimates 500,000 deaths on the Ukrainian side since February 2022, and according to Russian President Vladimir Putin, 75,500 Ukrainian troops have been killed since the counteroffensive began in the first week of June.

These harrowing figures, which will only be catastrophically worse by the time the next US presidential election rolls around in November 2024, will undoubtedly become a central discussion point that the Republicans will use to criticise the Democrats. At this juncture, it appears that Biden will continue strongly supporting Ukraine in the short term, but this will inevitably slowly diminish as elections approach.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Part I 

Do Vaccines Cause Autism? A History of Institutional Corruption

By Helen Buyniski, Richard Gale, and Dr. Gary Null, August 29, 2023

Part II

Do Vaccines Cause Autism? The Evidence Against Vaccine Safety

By Helen Buyniski, Richard Gale, and Dr. Gary Null, September 05, 2023

 

 

---

Aluminum

Aluminum is an adjuvant, a chemical booster added to vaccines to induce an immune response. Most vaccines in the CDC schedule contain an aluminum compound. Furthermore, there is a large body of scientific research to support a connection between aluminum and neurotoxicity.

It is worth noting that the federal health agencies have admitted to the many dangers posed by aluminum exposure, such as the 357 page document titled “Toxicological Profile for Aluminum” released in 2008 by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The document, which was thoroughly vetted by CDC scientists, states:

“There is a rather extensive database on the oral toxicity of aluminum in animals. These studies clearly identify the nervous system as the most sensitive target of aluminum toxicity and most of the animal studies have focused on neurotoxicity and neurodevelopmental toxicity.”[122]

Screenshot from ATSDR

Despite the government’s tacit recognition of aluminum’s health risks, the CDC and other federal agencies have made no effort to further investigate the cumulative toxicological impact of the current vaccine schedule.

Another culpable ingredient now used in most childhood vaccinations, and also associated with adverse neurological effects, is the adjuvant aluminum. Because the viruses in vaccines have been weakened or killed, they are unable to trigger a sufficient immune response in the body. Therefore, an adjuvant is used to hyperstimulate the immune system to start producing antibodies. Without an adjuvant, vaccines would largely be ineffective. The critical question raised by Generation Rescue co-founder and author of How to End the Autism EpidemicJonathan “JB” Handley is, “Could an ingredient in vaccines whose purpose is to hyperstimulate the immune system trigger immune activation in the brain at critical points during brain development?”[123]

Since 2000, as thimerosal was being phased out, children’s aluminum adjuvant burden has increased, with more vaccines being added to the CDC’s vaccination schedule.[124] Aluminum compounds — either as aluminum hydroxide or aluminum phosphate — are the most used adjuvants found in vaccines, including the hepatitis A and B vaccines, DTP, Hib, Pneumococcus, and the HPV vaccine or Gardasil. Each is given to children, the HPV now starting at 10 years. Handley notes that in the mid-1980s, a fully vaccinated child would have received 1,250 mcg of aluminum before turning 18 years of age. Today, that same fully vaccinated child would be injected with over 4,900 mcg, a four-fold increase.[125] A child’s actual aluminum exposure is likely much greater because aluminum sulfate is used in the purification of municipal water. Drinking water may contain levels up to 1,000 mcg/L. An early 1996 study published in the American Academy of Pediatrics monthly journal acknowledged aluminum toxicity and adverse effects in premature infants receiving intravenous fluid therapy.[126]

The aluminum compounds used as adjuvants in vaccines are selected despite known neurotoxicity and a preponderance of evidence that they cause brain inflammation and other autoimmune symptoms. Dr. Roman Gherardi has found that aluminum is extremely biopersistent and that far from remaining localized at the site of injection, aluminum adjuvant is taken up in the bloodstream and travels all over the body, building up in the brain over the course of years of vaccinations instead of being quickly eliminated as vaccine apologists claim.[127] A 2018 study by Mold et.al. found “some of the highest values for aluminum in human brain tissue yet recorded” in the teenage autistic patients the researchers examined – rates 10 times higher than what would be expected in an adult, let alone a child. The location of the aluminum within the brain also suggested it had traveled there via immune pathways, appearing in inflammatory non-neuronal cells called microglia. The researchers concluded this unusual distribution was a “standout observation” in autistic brain tissue and likely played a role in the development of the disorder.[128]

A common argument against vaccine opponents, who blame aluminum for a variety of health conditions, including autism, is that the metal is the third most prevalent element on earth. What they fail to acknowledge is our gastric-intestinal system is rather impervious to aluminum absorption. About 2% of orally consumed aluminum from the environment is actually absorbed and much of this is later expelled from the body by other means. However, injectable and intravenous aluminum compounds directly entering the bloodstream are a completely different matter. This is why the use of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines carries a high neurodegenerative and autism risk. Aluminum neurotoxicity in preterm infants after intravenous feeding, which then contained alum, was observed back in 1997 and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.[129] Thirty-nine percent of infants receiving aluminum-containing solutions developed learning problems upon entering schools compared to those receiving aluminum-free solutions.

Similar to thimerosal, aluminum is a heavy metal that contributes to oxidative stress leading to neuroinflammation and microgliosis, an intense adverse reaction of the central nervous system microglia that leads to a pathogenic results characteristic in some ASD conditions.[130] The National Library of Medicine lists over 2,000 references about aluminum’s toxicity to human biochemistry. Aluminum’s dangers, often found as alum or aluminum hydroxide in vaccines and food preparations, have been known since 1912, when the first director of the FDA, Dr. Harvey Wiley, later resigned in disgust over its commercial use in food canning; he was also among the first government officials to ever warn about tobacco’s cancer risks back in 1927.[131] The medical profession cannot argue against aluminum’s ill effects on children.

Dr. James Lyons Weiler at the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge has noted that aluminum levels found in vaccines are based on increasing immune efficacy and completely ignore the body weight safety of a child, especially infants and toddlers. But even more negligently, the safety codes for aluminum vaccine doses rely on dietary studies in mice and rats, not human children! Lyons-Weiler notes, “On Day 1 of life, infants receive 17 times more aluminum than would be allowed if doses were adjusted per body weight.”[132] The author is referring to the Hepatitis B vaccine given immediately after birth.

Infancy and the neonatal states are the most vulnerable periods of human development, a time when individuals are most susceptible to transfer and uptake of toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury — if a pregnant mother received a thimerosal-laced flu shot — into the brain tissue.

Newborns also vary in size, organ development, genetic disposition, and mother’s environment in utero.

Fetal elimination of toxins is also vastly different that the later stages of development in life. Research investigating the elimination of ethylmercury or aluminum in an adult has little relevance to that of a fetus. Nevertheless, vaccines adhere to a one-size-fits-all model for their formulation, and much of the argument for vaccine ingredient safety is solely based upon published studies on adults, not fetuses and infants. Worse, JB Handley’s investigations realized that “aluminum was grandfathered into pediatric vaccines without safety testing.”[133]

In other words, injecting aluminum into the bloodstreams of small children has NEVER best tested. This is supported by Drs. Christopher Shaw and Lucjia Tomljenovic at the University of British Columbia’s Neural Dynamics group, who has been investigating aluminum toxicity diligently in their laboratory. In their paper “Mechanisms of Aluminum Adjuvant Toxicity and Autoimmunity,” the authors state, “It is somewhat surprising to find that in spite of over 80 years of use, the safety of AL adjuvants continues to rest on assumptions rather than scientific evidence. For example, nothing is known about the toxicology and pharmacokinetics of AL adjuvants in infants and children.”[134]

Shaw and Tomljenovic have conducted extensive research over the years to determine the neurotoxicological effects of vaccine aluminum and its correlation with the rise of autism spectrum disorders. There is already a strong correlation between children in countries with the highest autism rates and aluminum levels from vaccine exposure. As stated above, the FDA established its measurement for aluminum allowance based upon the amount necessary to trigger the vaccine’s antigenicity rather than concerns about toxicity or safety. In an earlier 2009 study published in the Journal of Neuromolecular Medicine, Dr. Shaw and his team demonstrated that the extreme toxicity of aluminum adjuvant contributed to motor neuron death associated with Gulf War illness.[135] It was the first study to test aluminum in vaccines within a biological setting.

Some of the research to discover aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines’ toxic levels and their adverse effects has found the following:


• Aluminum inflicts strong neurotoxicity on primary neurons.[136]

• Aluminum-laced vaccines increase the aluminum levels in murine brain tissue leading to neurotoxicity.[137]

• Aluminum hydroxide, the most common form of adjuvant used in vaccines, deposits mostly in the kidney, liver and brain.[138]

• Long term exposure to vaccine-derived aluminum hydroxide (which is today an ingredient in almost all vaccines) results in macrophagic myofascitis lesions.[139]

Sealey et al. published a 2016 article titled “Environmental factors in the development of autism spectrum disorder.” The authors conducted a comprehensive literature search, the result of which implicated environmental factors in autism, including heavy metals, especially aluminum used in vaccines as an adjuvant. Also implicated are pesticides, phthalates, polychlorinated biphenyls, solvents, air pollutants, fragrances, and the weed killer glyphosate (RoundUp).[140]

The work of Dr. Roman Gherardi at the University of Paris has also recently come to light, showing that when an aluminum adjuvant is injected in a mouse, it will find its way to the brain a year later. The significance of this discovery would confirm that many cases of autism progress gradually, and symptoms do not necessarily appear immediate upon or several days after vaccination. Gherardi and his colleagues also discovered in a later 2015 study that aluminum adjuvant remains in the tissues far longer than originally assumed.

The principle argument offered by the pro-vaccine community and health officials is that aluminum is quickly eliminated from the body. However, the Paris University study raises a serious concern over aluminum’s biopersistence, which Gherardi calls a “Trojan horse mechanism.” The adjuvant can lodge and accumulate in brain tissue for years, decades or perhaps a lifetime. This should also further raise a question whether vaccines are now also contributing to the epidemic in dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease that has also been associated with brain neuroinflammation caused by the buildup of aluminum plaque. Back in the US, Dr. Carlos Pardo-Villamizar at Johns Hopkins University published his paper “Neuroglial Activation and Neuroinflammation in the Brain Patterns of Patients with Autism.” His conclusions: autistic brains are permanently inflamed. This was the first independent study to actually look at the brains of people with autism.

This brings us to the critical research and findings of Prof. Christopher Exley at Keele University in the UK and their investigation into the brain tissue of autistic patients to measure aluminum levels. Exley’s finding, reproduced by JB Handley, is shocking. He reports,

“While the aluminum content of each of the five brains (of people with autism) was shockingly high, it was the location of the aluminum in the brain tissue which served as the standout observation…. The new evidence strongly suggests that aluminum is entering the brain in ASD via pro-inflammatory cells which have become loaded up with aluminum in the blood and/or lymph, much as has been demonstrated for monocytes at injection sites for vaccines including aluminum adjuvants.”

Why is this so critical? Because Exley has identified a biomolecular pathway directly leading to vaccine-caused brain inflammation. It is the monocytes or macrophages at the injection sites, the point where a child has been vaccinated, that have become the carriers of aluminum to the brain.

The alarming health consequences of aluminum were reported in a  2011 study published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry by Drs. Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher Shaw at the University of British Columbia. The study revealed that rates of autism spectrum disorder among children are greater in countries where children are exposed to the highest amounts of aluminum in vaccines.

The authors also noted “the increase in exposure to Al [aluminum] adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase in ASD [autism spectrum disorder] prevalence in the United States observed over the last two decades” Applying a statistical measure used to assess the causation inherent in a correlation, they were able to confirm that “the correlation between Al in vaccines and ASD may be causal.”[141] An additional article by Dr. Tomljenovic, and published in a 2014 issue of the journal Immunotherapy, discussed the neurotoxic effects of aluminum on the central nervous system. The article mentions the role played by the metal in triggering autoimmune and inflammatory responses, altering genetic expression and contributing to neurodevelopmental disorders.[142]

These findings are further supported by MIT researcher Dr. Stephanie Seneff. Seneff’s scientific investigation into the pathology of autism has turned up evidence that the neurotoxicity of aluminum is greatly increased when combined with glyphosate, Monsanto’s very widely used pesticide which is sprayed on crops around the world. Seneff posits that not only do these two agents combine to promote neurodevelopmental conditions but can also disrupt the gut’s microbiome, potentially leading to leaky gut syndrome, kidney failure, and other serious complications.[143]

In a comprehensive overview of the literature on aluminum adjuvants, Tomljenovic and Shaw bring together studies confirming these molecules are not only neurotoxic but also endocrine disruptors, genotoxins, immunotoxins, and pro-inflammatories; they also interfere with glucose metabolism, membrane receptor signaling, mitochondrial function and ATP energy transfer, among other homeostatic functions.[144] While aluminum’s environmental ubiquity is a source of harms on its own, the body is able to excrete much of what it consumes through food and drink. When injected, however, the human brain doesn’t stand a chance: dozens of studies have confirmed that aluminum adjuvant particles can cross the blood-brain barrier, triggering a devastating inflammatory response in brain tissue. During infancy and childhood, the blood-brain barrier is at its most permeable, rendering the administration of adjuvant-containing vaccines especially destructive. Vargas et.al. published a paper on the link between microglial activation and autism in 2004, demonstrating that autistic patients suffered from lifelong low-level immunoexcitation of the brain, in a study that has been replicated many times.[145]

A 2017 study by Crépeaux et.al. required a wholesale reevaluation of everything we know about aluminum adjuvants. The researchers found, counterintuitively, that it was actually the smallest doses of the adjuvant Alhydrogel (brand name for aluminum oxyhydroxide, the most common adjuvant used in vaccines) that produced the worst neurotoxic effects. Higher doses were seen to trigger the formulation of protective “granulomas” – a function of the body’s natural immune defenses against hostile foreign intruders – but in small doses the aluminum nanoparticles were taken up by monocytes (white blood cells) as part of the immune response to the vaccine, riding those cells all the way to the brain. The low-dose subjects were those who displayed marked neurobehavioral deterioration.[146]

No studies were ever conducted to evaluate the safety of aluminum adjuvants before drugmakers decided to use them in vaccines – indeed, the FDA’s ceiling on how much aluminum a vaccine can contain is based on the substance’s efficacy in enhancing the vaccine’s antigenicity, not how it is tolerated in the body. The mechanism by which aluminum acts as an immune adjuvant is poorly understood,[147] yet its use is considered safe beyond question as a matter of faith, even though the CDC limits aluminum in parenteral feeding solutions for safety reasons.[148] With a vaccine schedule that only expands, never contracts, children today are injected with many times the aluminum load of children 30 years ago, and the weight of the evidence that this substance is toxic cannot be ignored.

A study published in 2018 points to fluoride as another possible trigger for the immunoexcitotoxicity that has been indisputably linked to autism. Strunecka et.al. discovered that the synergistic effects of aluminum and fluoride exposure resulted in far worse inflammation in neural tissue than aluminum or fluoride alone. Worse, the combination of the two neurotoxins has a marked effect on cell signaling, nervous system function, and neurodevelopment when present in lower concentrations than either substance alone. Because the US is one of the dwindling number of countries that persists in adding the industrial byproduct fluoride to its drinking water despite the overwhelming burden of scientific proof of its negative health effects, most children exposed to excessive aluminum through their vaccination schedules are also consuming excessive fluoride – doubly dangerous in conjunction with the biopersistent adjuvant.[149]

The CDC knows aluminum adjuvants are as toxic and damaging as thimerosal and has exploited this knowledge in the studies it has conducted to “prove” vaccines have no connection to autism. The agency’s scientists administer a “placebo” to the control group that still contains the deadly adjuvant, ensuring they too will be poisoned and thus not differ noticeably in autism rates from the active-vaccine group. At this point, with so many papers in the peer-reviewed literature proving the neurotoxicity of aluminum adjuvants, such a “mistake” in research methodology can only be a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the reality.[150] To administer an inert placebo would be to open up the trial to the possibility of meaningful results, a mistake they vowed never to make again at Simpsonwood.

The indictment of aluminum adjuvants should have been complete with a 2015 Chinese study published in the Journal of Neuroimmunology. The study compared three groups – one receiving a tuberculosis vaccine that contained no aluminum adjuvant; one receiving the aluminum-containing hepatitis B vaccine typically given to babies on their first day outside the womb; and one control group. The hepatitis B group manifested heightened levels of IL-6, the cytokine marker for autism, and impeded synaptic plasticity in the hippocampus, a brain area particularly sensitive to the effects of neuroinflammation. The tuberculosis group showed lower levels of IL-6 and increased synaptic plasticity.[151] The study seems to confirm that it is not the vaccines as such that have caused such a devastating increase in neurodevelopmental disorders, but medical authorities’ refusal to address the presence of a neurotoxic adjuvant in one of their most lucrative products.

Formaldehyde

Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring metabolite commonly added to bacterial and viral vaccines. According to the FDA “It is used to inactivate viruses so that they don’t cause disease (e.g., polio virus used to make polio vaccine) and to detoxify bacterial toxins, such as the toxin used to make diphtheria vaccine.”[152] Though formaldehyde may neutralize potentially harmful pathogens in vaccines, the World Health Organization lists it as a “known human carcinogen.”

According to a report by the US’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), ingesting “formaldehyde can be fatal, and long-term exposure to low levels in the air or on the skin can cause asthma-like respiratory problems and skin irritation such as dermatitis and itching.” The report also cites formaldehyde as “a cancer hazard.”[153] More evidence suggests formaldehyde exhibits neurotoxic properties as well.[154]

The response from our health officials is that formaldehyde is contained in such small doses in vaccines that it doesn’t threaten human health. However, there is a conspicuous lack of research into the effects of formaldehyde exposure through multiple vaccines in pediatric populations. Given that infants and small children possess a much greater sensitivity to toxins compared to adults and that formaldehyde is introduced to children through immunizations containing a host of other toxic ingredients, it is crucial that we reevaluate its use in vaccines.

Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)

Monosodium glutamate, also known as MSG, has been used as a food additive for over a century, imparting a savory flavor that appeals to many people. It has also made its way into vaccines. Dr. Russell Blaylock notes that MSG is classified as an excitotoxin, or a compound which over stimulates cell receptors to such an extent that the cell ceases to function normally, resulting in damage to nerve cells and contributing to seizures.[155, 156, 157]

In Blaylock’s 2009 three part series, “A possible central mechanism in autism spectrum disorders,” he wrote:

“There is compelling evidence from a multitude of studies of various design indicating that foodborne excitotoxin additives can elevate blood and brain glutamate to levels known to cause neurodegeneration and in the developing brain, abnormal connectivity. Excitotoxins are also secreted by microglial activation when they are in an activated state. Recent studies, discussed in part 1 of this article, indicate that chronic microglial activation is common in the autistic brain. The interaction between excitotoxins, free radicals, lipid peroxidation products, inflammatory cytokines, and disruption of neuronal calcium homeostasis can result in brain changes suggestive of the pathological findings in cases of autism spectrum disorders. In addition, a number of environmental neurotoxins, such as fluoride, lead, cadmium, and aluminum, can result in these pathological and biochemical changes.”[158]

Animal and Human DNA

Animal and even human tissues are used as a culture medium to grow the targeted virus or bacteria used in vaccines. Today, vaccine viruses are cultured in chicken fibroblast cells and embryos, chick retinal and kidney cells, monkey and dog kidney cells, aborted human fetal lung fibroblast cells and mouse brain tissue, to name a few.[159] In 2013, the FDA approved the use of insect cells instead of chicken eggs for the influenza vaccine.

Unfortunately, viral filtration of the substrate that will be used  in the vaccine is a primitive manufacturing process. A significant amount of foreign DNA and genetic debris from the culture finds its way into the vaccine that is eventually administered to children. DNA fragments can recombine with our body’s host cells thereby triggering undesirable autoimmune reactions. Considering the exponential increase in autoimmune diseases over the past 25 years, it is reasonable to suspect that the large amount of foreign genetic debris injected into our bodies is wreaking havoc with natural immune functions. There are also instances of certain vaccines causing a specific autoimmune response, such as a Haemophilus influenza B vaccine and type 1 diabetes association, and a Hepatitis B-Multiple Sclerosis relationship, which were observed after widespread administration of these vaccines.[160, 161, 162]

Polysorbate 80

Polysorbate 80 is a chemical agent used as an emulsifier in vaccines. Research suggests that exposure to polysorbate 80 can “cause severe nonimmunologic anaphylactoid reactions.”[163] Another study found a connection between this substance and Crohn’s disease.[164]

Triton X-100

A type of detergent used in some flu vaccines, Triton X-100 has been found to promote cell death and cause intestinal damage in animal studies.[165, 166]

Phenol

Phenol is a type of preservative commonly used in vaccines. A study looking into the viability of preservatives in vaccines noted that phenol, like Thimerosal, is neurotoxic. The authors suggested that “(f)uture formulations of US-licensed vaccines/biologics should be produced in aseptic manufacturing plants as single dose preparations, eliminating the need for preservatives and an unnecessary risk to patients.”[167]

2-Phenoxyethoanol

The compound known as 2-Phenoxyethoanol is commonly used as an antibacterial agent in vaccines. Among its known. Reports link this chemical to kidney, liver, and neurological toxicity.[168]

Vaccine-Autism Research

Scientists at the University of Pittsburgh investigated the effects of vaccination on the neurodevelopment of baby macaque monkeys. The monkeys were given a course of vaccinations typical of the 1990s vaccine schedule. In comparison with the control group, vaccinated monkeys displayed abnormal patterns of brain growth and dysfunction of the amygdala – both strong indicators of autism when they appear in children.[169]

In 2002, the Journal of Biomedical Science published research carried out by scientists at Utah State University’s Department of Biology analyzing the effects of the MMR vaccine on the central nervous system. In their evaluation, the group discovered that autistic children who receive the MMR possess a higher titer of certain antibodies related to measles. These antibodies trigger an abnormal autoimmune response that effectively damages the brain’s myelin sheath. Evidence suggests that such damage to the myelin sheath may impair normal brain activities and cause autism.[170]

The University of California San Diego and San Diego State University published a study showing a higher incidence of autism among children who were given the MMR vaccine and subsequently took acetaminophen or Tylenol. Their findings were published in the medical journal Autism.[171]

There are more articles to summarize than fit within the scope of this article. The website How Do Vaccines Cause Autism? has compiled “the body of research supporting vaccine autism causation.” The compilers introduce the subject:

“The American Academy of Pediatrics FALSELY states that ‘Vaccines are not associated with autism.’

Autism is a largely immune mediated condition, and the purpose of a vaccine is to change the behavior of the immune system. Vaccines and their ingredients can cause the underlying medical conditions that are commonly found in children who have been given an autism diagnosis. These conditions include immune system impairment, autoimmune conditions, neuroinflammation, gastrointestinal damage, neurological regression, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, glial cell activation, interleukin-6 secretion dysregulation, damage to the blood–brain barrier, seizures, dendritic cell dysfunction, mercury poisoning, aluminum toxicity, gene activation and alteration, glutathione depletion, impaired methylation, impaired thioredoxin regulation, impairment of the opioid system, cellular apoptosis, endocrine dysfunction, and other disorders.”

This website, https://howdovaccinescauseautism.org/, is available for the perusal of anyone interested in familiarizing themselves with the science. Studies with their abstracts and author and publication information are posted, and relevant sections highlighted. A full list of the studies featured on this site have been kindly provided to us, and are listed as an appendix to this article.

“Unanswered Questions from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program”

Aside from the pursuit to understand autism through scientific observation and experimentation, with its many threads leading back to vaccines, there is the story being told in parallel in the courts, specifically the separate, specially designated “vaccine court.” An in presentation of the story of this court, and the information its proceedings have to offer in untangling the autism/vaccine knot, is presented by Mary Holland, Louis Conte, Robert Krakow, and Lisa Colin in a 2011 public law and legal theory research paper titled Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: a Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury.[172] This article is a must-read for anyone who wishes to understand what autism is, the vaccine-autism connection, the workings of the VICP, and its underbelly. The VICP appears to be one of the primary tools used to cover up the autism-vaccine connection by nature of its blanket refusal to compensate autism cases as such, before and since the Hannah Poling case.

But by compensating many families of individuals who were brain damaged by vaccines, the US government has all but admitted to the connection between vaccines, neurological disorders and autism.

The VICP, housed under the the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, is the only forum in which a parent may bring a claim for her child’s vaccine injury. In this court, the vaccine manufacturer does not stand trial; attorneys fees are paid by the vaccine court, which is funded by consumers through a special tax on vaccines; the case is not heard by a jury; and court cases take several years to be heard, as costs for families of injured children pile up.[173] It is a “no fault” program that requires parents to file first in the VICP before any other court.[174] It was created with the passing of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, legislation now infamous among vaccine-safety advocates.

This act was drafted for the purpose of creating the national immunization program which is commonplace today. A second purpose of this legislation was to shield the vaccine industry and the medical profession from liability, requiring parents to bring suit not against the vaccine manufacturer or healthcare provider, but against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).[175]

“Starting in 1988, no vaccine manufacturer was liable for a vaccine-related injury or death from one of the recommended vaccines ‘if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.’”[176]

However, the Act permits vaccine manufacturers the right “not to disclose known risks to parents or guardians of those being vaccinated,” leaving this to the discretion of the doctor.[177] Also, the statute of limitations for petitions made to VICP is 3 years, shorter than many state tort law statues.[178]

Rather shockingly, the VICP was established expressly to compensate “vaccine-related injury or death.” “Congress enacted the statue to compensate children who had been injured while serving the public good”[179] — though as infants and toddlers, they could never have known they were serving this “good,” nor did they willingly volunteer to do so. Here we have, in 1986, an admission from the federal government that vaccines are inherently unsafe — otherwise, what need would there be for this program? Since no prior studies had looked at the cumulative effect of giving many vaccines all at once to newborns and very young children, it starts to look like these children were subject to medical experimentation without informed consent.

Not only is this an outright admission of the inherent dangers of vaccines in general, but the proceedings of this court have revealed a direct connection between vaccines and autism specifically, though this connection is still officially denied.

At its inception, only certain injuries were recognized as vaccine injuries under the VICP, and these injuries were meant to be compensated quickly without requiring the petitioner to prove the vaccine caused the injury — if the injury was noticed within 30 days of vaccination.[180] These recognized injuries include encephalopathy and residual seizure disorders, among others (such as death). Recognized injuries are listed in an official Vaccine Injury Table. But for those injuries which were not included in the Table, “petitioners would have to prove these injuries based on a preponderance of the evidence, a ‘more likely than not’ standard.”[181]

The Unanswered Questions paper looks in detail at the DSM-IV definitions of “autistic disorder” and of “encephalopathy, seizures and sequela” and note they do not contradict each other. In fact, “when put side by side, [they] show significant similarities.”[182]

The report explains the Autism Omnibus legal proceedings which went on between 2002 and 2009,[183] a mind-bending arrangement in which the court examined six “test cases” of autism as exemplars of theories that attempt to explain vaccine-autism causation. If these theories were concluded by the Special Masters overseeing the court to be correct, that would establish a precedent that autism can be caused by vaccines. Awaiting the decision of these six test cases were another 5,000 petitioners who had also filed claims alleging that MMR and thimerosal had caused their children’s autism. (Many more thousands of claims were barred from inclusion due to the statute of limitations[184]). The decisions made on the test cases were then to apply to all the petitioners.

The Omnibus proceedings were marked by significant aberrations, apparent abuse, red flags and hanging questions, as the authors explain in detail. Ultimately and predictably, the Omnibus ended in the decision that vaccination did not cause the children’s autism in each of the test cases. However, during proceedings, a court document was leaked to the press, in which HHS conceded that in one of the slated test cases, the famous Hannah Poling case,[185] her autism was indeed “triggered” by vaccination. According to the authors,

“The Poling concession left unclear just how Hannah Poling might differ from the other five thousand claims of vaccine-induced autism in the Omnibus… [It] raised key questions about the VICP’s transparency and equitable treatment of petitioners. Just how different was Hannah Poling’s case?”[186]

After the Poling revelations, journalists wanted to find out whether more cases among those compensated by VICP resembled or resulted in autism.[187]

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) oversees the VICP as well as the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), a separate injury compensation program established under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act[188] to compensate injuries resulting only from “countermeasures” to public health emergencies, namely vaccines. (See note at end).

When queried by a journalist, David Bowman of the HRSA conveyed by email the following HRSA-approved statement, admitting that the very administration that runs the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program does not track autism:

“The government has never compensated, nor has it ever been ordered to compensate, any case based on a determination that autism was actually caused by vaccines. We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

Some children who have been compensated for vaccine injuries may have shown signs of autism before the decision to compensate, or may ultimately end up with autism or autistic symptoms, but we do not track cases on this bases.”

The author of the original inquiry which elicited this response, journalist David Kirby, then filed a Freedom of Information Act request to HHS “asking whether it would be possible to obtain information and documents regarding compensated vaccine injury claims.” He received a response that such an undertaking would take four to five years and would cost approximately $750,000. HHS’s response to the request states, “If you will send us a deposit for half of the estimated costs — $377,312.50 — we will proceed with assembling and reviewing these records.”[189]

This effective denial is the point from which the authors of the Unanswered Questions paper began meticulous and thorough efforts to uncover for themselves the data on cases accompanied by autism or neurological injury with “autism-like symptoms” listed in the DSM-IV, such as “decreased level of consciousness,” speech regression and speech disorders, and damaged ability to connect with others.[190]

The Unanswered Questions report lists 83 cases in which families have been compensated for cases of vaccine-induced encephalopathy and residual seizure disorder associated with autism. Included are brief but heartbreaking descriptions of each child’s devastating injuries and disabilities:

“He would bang his head approximately six times and then return to normal. He has the cognitive skills of a two or three year old… After the third DPT vaccination… He lost milestones and development…”[191]

In 21 of these cases, the word “autism” is actually used in court documents to describe the injuries that resulted from vaccination.

But regardless of whether the child’s injuries ultimately “resulted in” autism, the special masters were ready with their dysfunctional logic to skirt around discussing this, or blaming vaccines for that autism:

“It was noted at the hearing that Kienan’s neurologic disorder has features that might cause it to be labeled as ‘atypical autism,’ a condition within the category of ‘autistic spectrum disorder.’ I note, however, that even assuming that Kienan’s disorder is correctly classified within the ‘atypical autism’ category, that is essentially irrelevant to my ruling… As Dr. Kinsbourne explained, Kienan’s autistic-type features seem to be a result of the brain damage caused by his severe mental retardation. As Dr. Kinsbourne further explained, brain damage is one of the many possible causes of autism. Thus, I cannot see why the fact that Kienan’s disorder may fall within the autism spectrum has any substantial relevance to the question of what caused Kienan’s seizure disorder and mental retardation.”[192]

Another:

“Respondent argues that Eric’s current behavioral manifestations and retardation ‘fit the pattern of autistic spectrum disorders with severe mental retardation.’ Dr. Spiro summarizes: ‘This child had a [DPT-related febrile] reaction following his DPT booster, but it is clear that he currently fits into the autistic spectrum disorder with retardation. This group of disorders is totally unrelated to DPT, it usually constitutes a group of genetically determined or idiopathic disorders (without a clear known etiology [or origin]).”[193]

The obvious conclusion is that, in paying these claims, the government has implicitly acknowledged a link between vaccination and autism.[194]

The authors explain why they think there may be many more such cases, “that autism is often associated with vaccine-induced brain damage.”[195] They recommended a Congressional Inquiry into compensated cases of vaccine-induced injury to find out how frequently this association occurs. The invitation is still open. They also recommend that the scientific community “investigate all compensated cases of vaccine injury to gain a fuller understanding of the totality of consequences of vaccine injury.”[196]

Since the 2011 publication of this paper, Wayne Rohde, author of two books on the vaccine injury compensation programs, may have found more. Rohde maintains a database of over 15,000 vaccine injury petitions that have been adjudicated or are pending. He says he has identified 26 more possible cases, which cannot be confirmed without official medical oversight. He determined these additional cases by looking “at a few of the compensated awards and the lifecare plan that was awarded to them. If the plan shows certain types of therapies or medical treatments that are common for kids with autism,” he marks the case as a possible autism case. He said, “I can not be certain until the families are interviewed by medical staff. That is the problem. No one wants to speak due to the extreme media pressure that will come their way. CNN, HuffPost, Fortune, Newsweek plus all the online news sites that CDC uses for PR will come after them.”[197]

In the collection of the United States government’s published records of decisions made in the United States Court of Opinions in the care of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 1,905 opinions on vaccine injury cases have been published since the beginning of January 2023. Of these twenty-four decisions have been made on cases for which the record contain the word “encephalopathy.”[198] In one of these, the decision reads,

“On August 2, 2019, Michelle Carroll (“Petitioner”) filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury Program on behalf of J.W., a minor child, alleging that as a result of receiving the pneumococcal conjugate (“PCV13”), Haemophilus influenzae type B (“Hib”) (abbreviated in the record as HIB-PRP-T), inactivated poliovirus (“IPV”), diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (“DTaP”), and rotavirus vaccines on August 3, 2016, and PCV13 and rotavirus vaccines on October 11, 2016, J.W. suffered injuries including encephalopathy with residual seizure disorder and global developmental delay.”[199][emphasis added]

Sounds awfully like autism.[200] But as David Bowman mentioned, the government isn’t keeping track. If you’d like, you can keep track for yourself.[201]

The United States Court of Federal Claims publishes annual reports of vaccine cases.[202] However, since the 2016,[203] no annual judgment reports have been posted, only statistical reports, making these cases more difficult to follow, and with no disclosures of specific cases.[204]

According to HRSA, in the life of the vaccine court, almost half of all petitions filed have been dismissed, while some have not yet been heard. Less than half of all those cases which have been heard by the court to date have received compensation. In 2011, at the time of the publication of the Unanswered Questions paper, only one in five cases had received compensation. The authors conducted telephone interviews with caregivers of the autistic children who made petitions to the VICP. In answer to the questions about their experiences in the vaccine court, caregivers made comments such as “It was a war” and “The court spends way too much time looking for ways NOT to compensate families.”[205] The authors also noted abuse and scorn directed to the petitioners and their advocates by the court’s judges in the Autism Omnibus proceedings.[206] When the court was set up to “quickly and easily” compensate families of children who were injured by vaccines “with certainty and generosity,”[207] and when these vaccines have been made mandatory for a child’s normal participation in society,[208] these are unsettling comments.

A report from the Department of Justice showed that within a three month period from November 2014- February 2015, 117 vaccine-induced injuries and deaths were compensated by VICP. The majority of the injuries listed in the report were caused by the flu vaccine and the most common injury linked to the flu vaccine was Guillain-Barré Syndrome, an uncommon illness in which the immune system attacks and damages the body’s neurons, sometimes resulting in permanent nerve damage or even death.[209]

Is this what we want for “public health”?

But for a moment, let’s leave aside altogether whether autism is “caused by” vaccines, or whether it’s just “triggered” by them, whether vaccines can “result in” autism or “lead to” autism, rather than, God forbid, “cause” it. Though it is critically important to determine whether autism is caused by vaccines, it is not the only injury resulting from vaccines. Over 10,000 cases compensated by HHS and over $4.5 billion attest to this.[210]

Let the captured judges and medical “experts” continue until the end of time to make their official proclamations that autism is not caused by vaccines. But what if the public woke up? Is the 1986 Act constitutional? What would happen if this legislation were repealed, and the national childhood vaccination program and state mandates dismantled? What if families were allowed to sue first the companies and doctors who injured their children? Would Big Pharma go bankrupt? Would the tidal wave of autism, too, recede? Do we want to find out?

What was the purpose of the 1986 Act and the Vaccine Injury Compensation program, which have made the proliferation of childhood vaccines possible? Holland and colleagues wrote:

The 1986 Law outlined an ambitious agenda for vaccine research, production, procurement, distribution, promotion, and purchase of vaccines. It established the VICP to compensate ‘vaccine-related injury or death.’ In its legislative history, Congress asserted that the purpose of the program was ‘to establish a federal no-faults program under which awards can be made to vaccine-injured personas quickly, easily, and with certainty and generosity.’ Congress enacted the statue to compensate children who had been injured while serving the public good.[211]

Was this legislation good for the public, or good for Pharma? Was this legislation set up to protect public health? Or pharmaceutical profits? In setting up the VICP to compensate “vaccine-related injury or death” in order to facilitate a national vaccination program, ostensibly intended to protect public health, the 1986 Act’s stated purpose contradicts and nullifies itself. If this were a moral and democratic country, it would never have come to pass. It is apparent, by the very grounds upon which the vaccine court is laid, that what is actually happening in America has nothing to do with protecting public health. Children, who are taken to the pediatrician’s office by their parents as infants, before they are even conscious of what is happening to them, are being subjected to a game of Russian roulette with their health, before their lives have even begun, before they can make choices for themselves. The view of the individual life in this situation is that it is expendable. The child’s life has no inherent sanctity. Her life does not belong to her — her choice isn’t even a consideration.

According to this view, public health is meaningless. What is the public but a collection of individuals? All of whose lives are sacrosanct — that is why they are to be protected. Is a product which is capable of killing and maiming some children somehow safe for others? Is it not to be considered a poison which always has the potential to harm, and may only harm? This harm may appear in different degrees, and in some cases may go unnoticed. In some cases the injury may never be connected with the vaccine at all. If even one child’s life is not protected, it is not in the interest of public health. That one individual’s health is destroyed, by a measure to which she would never have been exposed if she had not been sacrificed, and not of her own volition, for “the public good.” There is no public good outside of the good of individuals, all of whom must be protected if the measure is to protect the good of all.

If there is some circumstance in which some lives must be sacrificed for some greater good, it can only be moral and therefore right, if it is done with the full informed consent of the individual who is to be sacrificed. She is the public, he is the public, we are each the public. If it was not for their good, it is not for our good. If even one life is not protected, no life is — it could be any one of us. As Barbara Loe Fischer wrote, “When it happens to your child, the risks are 100%.” Any one person could be the one to die or, perhaps worse, suffer a lifetime of incarceration in the smallest and most confining prison, an incapacitated body and a dysfunctional mind. The risks of this “game” are hidden from parents, who are placed in the unenviable position of pulling the trigger, aiming the gun at their own child. How can these parents and children then be expected to live with the consequences? What if the consequences are the annihilation of the child’s health, of his capacity to think, speak, interact with others, grow, develop and support himself for the rest of his life? Indeed, the consequence may be death.

Why should public health be based on a lottery of losses? Why should the supposed “health” of the masses be paid for with the death or maiming of a minority — if the maiming is in fact only of a minority, a subject which has not been properly investigated? The United States pretends to hold at its center the protection of the individual. Government is supposed to spring from the sole purpose to defend and guard individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The national vaccination program, as it stands now, can only be justified because the information we have just presented has been hidden. It’s time to end this inexplicable, criminal assault on children. We must refuse to participate in this risky game and we must demand an end to the medical fascism behind it.

Note on the CICP:

It’s worth noting that the Covid-19 vaccine caused far and away the greatest number of injuries of any vaccine in history for which the CICP has received petitions, as well as have ever been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.[212] 56 percent of all injuries reported to VAERS, and 12,025 out of 12,576 total claims ever filed in the CICP were for the Covid-19 vaccines. This would be strikingly apparent if the data for the CICP[213] appeared alongside the VICP data[214] instead of in another dataset, as it is now. Around 26,000 petitions have been filed in the history of VICP, or almost double the number of petitions filed to CICP for the Covid-19 vaccine. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Helen Buyniski is a journalist and photographer based in New York City. Her work has appeared on RT, Global Research, Ghion Journal, Progressive Radio Network, and Veterans Today. Helen has a BA in Journalism from New School University and also studied at Columbia University and New York University. Find more of her work at http://helenofdestroy.com and http://medium.com/@helen.buyniski or follow her on Twitter at @velocirapture23. 

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including his recent Last Call to Tomorrow.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Notes

122 “Toxicological Profile for Aluminum”, Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp22.pdf

123 Handley, JB. How to End the Autism Epidemic. Chelsea Green Publishing. 2018. https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/how-to-end-the-autism-epidemic/

124 Brown IA, Austin DW. Maternal transfer of mercury to the developing embryo/fetus: is there a safe level? Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry 94:8. 1610-1627. doi:10.1080/02772248.2012.724574 . WOS:000309707700013 . https://hero.epa.gov/hero/index.cfm/reference/details/reference_id/2304586

125 Handley, JB. How to End the Autism Epidemic. Chelsea Green Publishing. 2018. https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/how-to-end-the-autism-epidemic/

126 Aluminum Toxicity in Infants and Children Pediatrics March 1996, VOLUME 97 / ISSUE 3 114(4):1126 http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/97/3/413

127 Gherardi, RK et.al. “Macrophagic myofasciitis: characterization and pathophysiology.” Lupus. 2012 Feb;21(2):184-189. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3623725/

128 Mold, Matthew et.al. “Aluminium in brain tissue in autism.” Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology. 2018 Mar;46:76-82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17308763

129 Bishop NJ, Morley R, Day JP, Lucas A. Aluminum neurotoxicity in preterm infants receiving intravenous-feeding solutions. New England Journal Medicine. May 29, 1997 336(22):1557-61

130 Seneff S, Davidson RM, Liu JJ. Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure. September 24, 2012

131 http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/whatwedo/history/centennialoffda/harveyw.wiley/default.html

132 James Lyons-Weiler and Robert Ricketson Reconsideration of the immunotherapeutic pediatric safe dose levels of aluminum Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology Volume 48, July 2018, Pages 67-73 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17300950#!

133 Handley, JB. How to End the Autism Epidemic. Chelsea Green Publishing. 2018. https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/how-to-end-the-autism-epidemic/

134 Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA. Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations. Lupus. 2012 Feb;21(2):223-30. doi: 10.1177/0961203311430221. PMID: 22235057. https://vaccinesafetycouncilminnesota.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Mechanisms-of-aluminum-adjuvant-toxicity-and-autoimmunity-in-pediatric-populations.pdf

135 Shaw C. Aluminum adjuvant linked to gulf war illness induces motor neuron death in mice. Neuromolecular Medicine, 2007

136 Kawahara M et al. Effects of aluminum on the neurotoxicity of primary cultured neurons and on the aggregation of betamyloid protein. Brain Res. Bull. 2001, 55, 211-217

137 Redhead K et al. Aluminum adjuvanted vaccines transiently increase aluminum levels in murine brain tissue. Pharacol. Toxico. 1992, 70, 278-280

138 Sahin G et al. Determination of aluminum levels in the kidney, liver and brain of mice treated with aluminum hydroxide. Biol. Trace. Elem Res. 1994. 1194 Apr-May;41 (1-2): 129-35

139 Gherardi M et al. Macrophagaic myofastitis lesions assess long-term. Brain. 2001. Vol. 124, No. 9, 1821-1831

140 Sealey LA, Hughes BW, Sriskanda AN, Guest JR, Gibson AD, Johnson-Williams L, Pace DG, Bagasra O. Environmental factors in the development of autism spectrum disorders. Environ Int. 2016 Mar;88:288-298. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.12.021. Epub 2016 Jan 28. PMID: 26826339. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26826339/

141 Tomljenovic, L. et.al. “Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?” Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. 2011 Nov;105(11):1489-99. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159

142 Shaw, Christopher A, Dan Li, and Lucija Tomljenovic. “Are There Negative CNS impacts of Aluminum Adjuvants Used in Vaccines and Immunotherapy?” Immunotherapy 6, no. 10 (2014): 1055-071. Accessed November 17, 2015. doi:10.2217/imt.14.81.

143 “Autism Explained: Synergistic Poisoning from Aluminum and Glyphosate”. Stephanie Seneff, May 24, 2014, http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/glyphosate/Seneff_AutismOne_2014.pdf

144 Tomljenovic, Lucija. “Answers to Common Misconceptions Regarding the Toxicity of Aluminum Adjuvants in Vaccines.” Vaccines and Autoimmunity. 2015. pp:43-56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300631720_Answers_to_Common_Misconceptions_Regarding_the_Toxicity_of_Aluminum_Adjuvants_in_Vaccines

145 Vargas, DL et.al. “Neuroglial activation and neuroinflammation in the brain of patients with autism.” Annals of Neurology. 15 Nov 2004;57(1). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ana.20315

146 Crépeaux, G. et.al. “Non-linear dose-response of aluminium hydroxide adjuvant particles: Selective low dose neurotoxicity.” Toxicology. 2017 Jan 15;375:48-57. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27908630

147 Masson, JD et.al. “Critical analysis of reference studies on the toxicokinetics of aluminum-based adjuvants.” Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. 2018 Apr;181:87-95. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29307441

148 Tomljenovic, op.cit.

149 Strunecka, A. et.al. “Immunoexcitotoxicity as the central mechanism of etiopathology and treatment of autism spectrum disorders: A possible role of fluoride and aluminum.” Surgical Neurology International. 2018;9:74. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5909100/

150 Shardlow, Emma et.al. “Unraveling the enigma: elucidating the relationship between the physicochemical properties of aluminium-based adjuvants and their immunological mechanisms of action.” Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology. 2018;14:80. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6223008/

151 Li, Q. et.al. “Neonatal vaccination with bacillus Calmette-Guérin and hepatitis B vaccines modulates hippocampal synaptic plasticity in rats.” Journal of Neuroimmunology. 2015 Nov 15;288:1-12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26531688

152 Common Ingredients in U.S. Licensed Vaccines. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. May 1, 2014. Archive accessed August 17, 2023. https://web.archive.org/web/20150801000000*/www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm187810.htm

153 OSHA Factsheet: Formaldehyde. Occupational Health and Safety Administration. 4/2011. Web archive from September 6, 2015. Archive accessed August 17, 2023. https://web.archive.org/web/20150906021018/https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/formaldehyde-factsheet.pdf

154 Pitten FA, Kramer A, Herrmann K, Bremer J, Koch S. Formaldehyde neurotoxicity in animal experiments. Pathol Res Pract. 2000;196(3):193-8.

155 Blaylock RL. A possible central mechanism in autism spectrum disorders, part 1. Altern Ther Health Med. 2008 Nov-Dec;14(6):46-53. PMID: 19043938.

156 Blaylock RL. A possible central mechanism in autism spectrum disorders, part 2: immunoexcitotoxicity. Altern Ther Health Med. 2009 Jan-Feb;15(1):60-7. PMID: 19161050.

157 Blaylock RL. A possible central mechanism in autism spectrum disorders, part 3: the role of excitotoxin food additives and the synergistic effects of other environmental toxins. Altern Ther Health Med. 2009 Mar-Apr;15(2):56-60. PMID: 19284184. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19284184/

158 Blaylock RL. A possible central mechanism in autism spectrum disorders, part 3: the role of excitotoxin food additives and the synergistic effects of other environmental toxins. Altern Ther Health Med. 2009 Mar-Apr;15(2):56-60. PMID: 19284184. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19284184/

159 Roberts, Janine, Fear of the Invisible, Impact Investigative Media Productions, 2008

160 Wahlbert J, et al, “Vaccinations May Induce Diabetes-related Autoantibodies in One Year old Children,” Annals of NY Academy of Sciences, 2003 Nov; 1005; 404-88.

161 Classen JB, Classen DC, “Clustering of Cases of Insulin Dependent Diabetes Occurring Three Years After Haemophilus Influenza B Immunization Supports Causal Relationship Between Immunization and IDDM,” Autoimmunity 2002 Jul; 35 (4); 247-53.

162 Jane Doe v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, January 16, 2009

163 Coors, Esther A., Heidi Seybold, Hans F. Merk, and Vera Mahler. “Polysorbate 80 In Medical Products And Nonimmunologic Anaphylactoid Reactions.” Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology 95, no. 6 (2005): 593-99.

164 Roberts, C. L., A. V. Keita, S. H. Duncan, N. O’kennedy, J. D. Soderholm, J. M. Rhodes, and B. J. Campbell. “Translocation of Crohn’s Disease Escherichia Coli across M-cells: Contrasting Effects of Soluble Plant Fibres and Emulsifiers.” Gut 59 (2010): 1331-339. doi:doi:10.1136/gut.2009.195370.

165 Strupp, W., G. Weidinger, C. Scheller, R. Ehret, H. Ohnimus, H. Girschick, P. Tas, E. Flory, M. Heinkelein, and C. Jassoy. “Treatment of Cells with Detergent Activates Caspases and Induces Apoptotic Cell Death.” Journal of Membrane Biology 173, no. 3 (2000): 181-89.

166 Oberle, R.l., T.j. Moore, and D.a.p. Krummel. “Evaluation of Mucosal Damage of Surfactants in Rat Jejunum and Colon.” Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods 33, no. 2 (1995): 75-81

167 Geier DA, Jordan SK, Geier MR “The Relative Toxicity of Compounds Used as Preservatives in Vaccines and Biologics.” Medical Science Monitor 2010;16(5): SR21-SR27.

168 Material Safety Data Sheet 2-Phenoxyethanol MSDS. Science Lab: Chemicals and Laboratory Equipment. Archived September 9, 2015. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://web.archive.org/web/20150909031738/https://sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9926486

169 Hewitson L, Lopresti BJ, Stott C, Mason NS, Tomko J. “Influence of pediatric vaccines on amygdala growth and opioid ligand binding in rhesus macaque infants: A pilot study.” Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2010;70(2):147-64.

170 Singh VK, Lin SX, Newell E, Nelson C. Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autrism. J. Biomed Science. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):359-64.

171 Schultz, S. T., H. S. Klonoff-Cohen, D. L. Wingard, N. A. Akshoomoff, C. A. Macera, and Ming Ji. “Acetaminophen (paracetamol) Use, Measles-mumps-rubella Vaccination, and Autistic Disorder: The Results of a Parent Survey.” Autism, 2008, 293-307. Accessed November 9, 2015.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18445737.

172 Holland M et al “Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury,” Pace Environmental Law Review Volume 28, Issue 2, Winter 2011.

173 About Vaccine Court. Michigan Vaccine Injury. Last accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.michiganvaccineinjury.org/reporting

174 Holland, 484

175 Holland, 484, 486

176 Holland, 488

177 Holland, 488

178 Holland, 487

179 Holland, 484

180 Holland, 485

181 Holland, 485-486

182 Holland, 495-496

183 Holland, 496-501

184 Holland, 496

185 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS (E-Filed: January 28, 2011) HANNAH POLING, a minor, by her Parents and Natural Guardians, TERRY POLING AND JON POLING, Petitioners v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Respondent. No. 02-1466V. Special Master Campbell-Smith; Clifford J. Shoemaker, Vienna, VA, for petitioners Catharine E. Reeves, Washington, DC, for respondent. Last accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/CAMPBELL-SMITH.POLING012811.pdf

186 Holland, 501

187 Holland, 501

188 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. Public Health Emergency. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Archived page, last update dated October 8, 2021. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://web.archive.org/web/20211221230549/https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/prepact/Pages/default.aspx

189 Holland, 538

190 Holland, 503-530

191 Holland, 508

192 Holland, 508

193 Holland, 507

194 Holland M et al “Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury,” Pace Environmental Law Review Volume 28, Issue 2, Winter 2011.

195 Holland, 531

196 Holland, 531

197 Email communication August 10, 2023.

198 Search Results: You Searched For: publishdate:range(2023-01-02,) and encephalopathy and vaccine. gov.info. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/search/%7B%22offset%22%3A0%2C%22query%22%3A%22publishdate%3Arange(2023-01-02%2C)%20and%20encephalopathy%20and%20vaccine%22%2C%22historical%22%3Atrue%2C%22facets%22%3A%7B%22accodenav%22%3A%5B%22USCOURTS%22%5D%2C%22personnamesnav%22%3A%5B%22SECRETARY%20OF%20HEALTH%20AND%20HUMAN%20SERVICES%22%5D%7D%2C%22filterOrder%22%3A%5B%22accodenav%22%2C%22personnamesnav%22%5D%2C%22sortBy%22%3A%223%22%2C%22pageSize%22%3A100%7D

199 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: March 10, 2023. MICHELLE CARROLL, on behalf of UNPUBLISHED J.W., a minor child, Petitioner, No. 19-1125V v. Special Master Dorsey SECRETARY OF HEALTH Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jessica Ann Wallace, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for Petitioner. Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. Case 1:19-vv-01125-UNJ Document 104 Filed 04/04/23. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01125/pdf/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01125-0.pdf

200 Shan L, Feng JY, Wang TT, Xu ZD, Jia FY. Prevalence and Developmental Profiles of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Children With Global Developmental Delay. Front Psychiatry. 2022 Jan 18;12:794238. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.794238. PMID: 35115968; PMCID: PMC8803654.

201 United States Court of Federal Claims: USCFC Vaccine-Reported. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7

202 Reports and Statistics. United States Court of Federal Claims. Last accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/reports-statistics

203 Lisa Reyes. Annual Report of the United States Court of Federal Claims for the year ended September 30,2016 as required by Section 791(c), Title 28, United States Code. January 9, 2017. Office of the Clerk of Court. United States Court of Federal Claims. Last accessed August 17, 2023. http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FY16-Report-to-Congress.pdf

204 STATISTICAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER 1, 2021 – SEPTEMBER 30, 2022. United States Court of Federal Claims. Last Accessed August 17, 2023. http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/AOstats-2022.pdf

205 Holland, 526

206 Holland, 497

207 Holland, 484

208 State Vaccination Requirements. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/laws/state-reqs.html

209 Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines. March 5, 2015. Health Resources and Services Administration. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Archived September 6, 2015. Archive accessed August 17, 2023. https://web.archive.org/web/20150906143041/https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/accvmeetingbookmarch52015.pdf

210 Petitions Filed, Compensated and Dismissed, by Alleged Vaccine, Since the Beginning of VICP, 10/01/1988 through 08/01/2023. (Vaccine Injury Compensation Data: Most Recent Data Report). Updated 08/01/2023. Health Resources and Services Administration. Accessed August 8, 2023. https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vicp/vicp-stats-08-01-23.pdf

211 Holland, 484

212 The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Results: Data current as of 08/04/2023. CDC Wonder Database. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=CF2DCF4FE6CC4A14B23A103191F3

213 Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) Data. Health Resources and Services Administration. Updated August 1, 2023. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/cicp-data

214 Petitions Filed, Compensated and Dismissed, by Alleged Vaccine, Since the Beginning of VICP, 10/01/1988 through 08/01/2023. (Vaccine Injury Compensation Data: Most Recent Data Report). Updated 08/01/2023. Health Resources and Services Administration. Accessed August 8, 2023. https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vicp/vicp-stats-08-01-23.pdf

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely ‘ Global Research articles.

***

The war in Ukraine will go on no matter who wins the 2024 US presidential elections according to Russian President Vladimir Putin according to Reuter’s ‘Putin signals he expects long war in Ukraine, is not betting on Trump’ said that 

“Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday indicated he was bracing for a long war in Ukraine, saying that Kyiv could use any ceasefire to rearm, and that Washington would continue to see Russia as an enemy no matter who won the 2024 U.S. election.” 

Putin was speaking at an economic forum in Vladivostok when he told the audience that

“There will be no fundamental changes in the Russian direction in U.S. foreign policy, no matter who is elected president,” Putin said. “The U.S. authorities perceive Russia as an existential enemy.” 

Former US President Donald Trump claims that if he wins the 2024 US elections, he will end the Russia-Ukraine War in 24 hours, 

“If it’s not solved, I will have it solved in 24 hours with Zelensky and with Putin,” Trump told war propagandist Sean Hannity of FOX News. 

Well, remember when Trump was the president, he authorized weapons sales to Ukraine on numerous occasions.  In early 2017, ABC News published a report based on Trump’s authorization for the Military Industrial Complex to sell Ukraine weapons titled ‘Trump approves sale of new arms to Ukraine amid escalated fighting’ said that

“President Donald Trump has approved the sale of more lethal arms to Ukraine as the country fights off Russian-backed fighters in its east — despite the president’s recent overtures for cooperation with Russian President Vladimir Putin.”  

Then in 2019, Trump once again approved another arms sale to Ukraine according to ABC News once again stating that “The Trump administration has approved the $39 million sale of defensive lethal weapons to Ukraine, according to two U.S. officials and another source familiar with the plan.” In this case, actions speak louder than words so who could blame Putin for not being optimistic for any chance of peace? No US presidential candidate, whether a Democrat (except with the possibility of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. who is against the war but has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination) or Republican would end the war.  

The US-NATO alliance wants Russia destroyed.  Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov once said that

“The actions of countries of the collective West and (Ukrainian President) Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is controlled by them, confirm the global nature of the Ukrainian crisis” and that “It is no secret that the strategic goal of the US and its NATO allies is victory over Russia on the battlefield as a mechanism for significantly weakening or even destroying our country.” 

Trump or the Democrats will continue their war against Russia at all costs no matter who wins the election. Putin is not optimistic about any of the US presidential candidates including Donald Trump. 

The world is dangerously close to a major war led by the US-NATO alliance so Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are preparing for the inevitable outcome, a war with Western powers that will have an impact on every man, woman, and child on the planet.

Why is the US establishment willing to risk such a destructive war that can result in the deaths of millions or even billions of people, especially if nuclear weapons are used? Perhaps the US establishment and their globalist partners believe that hiding in their bunkers in Patagonia, Argentina, or in New Zealand or any other place far from a world war will keep them safe, who knows. 

One thing is certain, the US and NATO believe that destroying Russia would allow them to maintain their power over the rest of the world no matter what the cost is even if it means using nuclear weapons to achieve that goal. 

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said it best,

“This is no longer a war between Russia and Ukraine, it is a war of the NATO-led, US-led imperialists who are trying to destroy Russia in order to impose themselves as masters of the planet.” 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SCN

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

 

 

 

 

Former Federal government analyst Richard C. Cook became a world-famous whistleblower when he released the documents that proved NASA’s advance knowledge of the flaws in the O-ring booster rocket joints that destroyed Space Shuttle Challenger and took the lives of its seven-person crew on the frigid morning of January 28, 1986.

Cook’s subsequent testimony to a Presidential Commission led to disclosures by contractor engineers that they tried but failed to stop the flight the night before launch due to their certain knowledge that the booster rockets would fail in sub-freezing temperatures at the Kennedy Space Center. Subsequently, the Commission identified some but not all of the causes of the disaster.

Richard C. Cook’s later research determined that NASA refused to stop flights to fix the known flaws in the O-ring joints because they were in a rush to convert the Shuttle into a testing platform for President Reagan’s “Star Wars” weapons-in-space program. NASA also failed to postpone the Challenger launch until the weather had improved in order to have Teacher-in-Space Christa McAuliffe in orbit prior to Reagan’s state-of-the-union address that night. In 2007, Cook published his findings in a post-retirement book, Challenger Revealed: An Insider’s Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Worst Tragedy of the Space Age. A reviewer called it “the most important spaceflight book in twenty years.”

Cook never returned to NASA after his testimony, spending the next twenty-one years as an analyst for the US Treasury Department. Through developing training courses on US monetary history, he acquired a deep understanding of how British, European, and US bankers hijacked the American monetary system by placing it under control of the Money Trust through the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913.

It was the Federal Reserve that financed the British takedown of rival Germany that became World War I and eventually World War II. It was the Federal Reserve that triggered the Great Depression by shipping US gold to Britain and Europe. It was the Federal Reserve that led to the Bretton Woods agreements, the creation of the International Monetary Fund, and the Marshall Plan which combined to place the world’s economy under the control of the US dollar.

In order to frighten the American people into acquiescence, the CIA and other security agencies, in league with the US Mainstream Media, elevated the Soviet Union into a bogeymen to justify the vast quantity of Federal Reserve “money printing” required for an out-of-control war budget and hundreds of US military bases around the world. President Eisenhower warned against the power of the military-industrial complex, but to no avail.

These measures led to worldwide dollar supremacy under control of the Rockefeller dynasty, with the US National Security State—aka today’s “Deep State”—being set up to enforce the bankers’ financial hegemony that has lasted until now. It was also the Rockefellers that oversaw the CIA, leading directly to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and the launching of the Vietnam War.

After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the Deep State began a long-term assault on a host of foreign countries threatening to break away from dollar hegemony. A trigger was the 9/11 false-flag attack used to justify the phony “War on Terror.” As Russia began to recover from the 1990s looting of its resources by US banks, the Deep State identified Russia under its President Vladimir Putin as the next big enemy to take down. Beyond Russia stood the growing power of China.

In the meantime, the US financial system crashed due to massive fraud but was bailed out by President Barack Obama with trillions of dollars of public funds, leading to today’s hyperinflating economy.

Today’s crisis started with Ukraine having become independent with the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Deep State overthrew Ukraine’s neutral government in a 2014 coup aided by neo-Nazi factions that murdered bystanders with sniper fire. The US then instigated a Russian invasion by a series of Ukrainian provocations intended to lead to war. The US and EU immediately launched a host of pre-planned sanctions designed to take down the Russian economy and provoke regime change against Putin.

The sanctions have failed to undermine the strength of Russia’s resource-based infrastructure. The US then launched a massive program of arming Ukraine with billions of dollars of weapons and pressured the NATO member states of Europe to do the same. Finally, in an act of terrorist sabotage, the US blew up Nord Stream 1 and 2 to sever the energy supplies from Russia to Germany in order to keep the nations of the EU permanently in the Russia orbit. But with Russia refusing to back down, the world is increasingly facing the prospect of a nuclear exchange with the Collective West that would launch World War III.

Make no mistake: the goal of the US is world conquest. Late in the 19^th century, Cecil Rhodes, the British diamond and gold magnate, conspired with Lord Nathan Rothschild and the Round Table to “recover America for the British Empire.” The US is now heir to age-old British ambitions. But what the US has become has absolutely nothing in common with the principles by which our nation was founded.

The US today has been further subverted by an alien ideology that gained control through the rise of the Neocon faction, beginning with the Reagan Administration. It is the Neocons, led by figures allied with Israel and coming out of the Project for a New American Century, who control the executive branch and Congress and are determined to lead the world into nuclear war and oblivion, meanwhile imagining that they will be the rulers over everyone and everything when it is all over. One of their tools is biological warfare, of which the Covid pandemic is likely an example.

In his new book, Richard C. Cook takes us through a journey of discovery that gives us some of the concepts to launch a new dawn for the American republic.

Along the way, he introduces us to the stories of his own American ancestors, including his first Puritan forebear to land on the shores of Massachusetts in 1636. We meet an ancestor who was killed in a famous Revolutionary War battle and another who was granted land in Illinois for service in the War of 1812.

We hear the story of pioneer farmers from the mid-West and men who served in the Civil War. We meet Cook’s great-grandfather, who rode in an Oklahoma land rush and became a friend to the Shawnees, joining their dances and learning their language. We hear the stories of later generations who served in World War I and II. We also learn about Cook’s own Native American roots through early French Canadian settlers..

Finally, Cook describes his government career, including service in the Jimmy Carter White House, where he witnessed the catastrophes of the “Reagan Revolution” and the Challenger disaster. Then in the early 2000s, he began to grasp the horror of the takeover of the US by the Money Trust, the Federal Reserve, and the Deep State.

His response was to work with Stephen Zarlenga, author of The Lost Science of Money, on drafting the American Monetary Act, followed by contacts with Congressman Dennis Kucinich. The result was Kucinich’s NEED Act of 2011, the most important monetary reform legislation ever introduced in the US Congress. The NEED Act would set up a program reminiscent of President Lincoln’s Greenback currency measures but in a modern context with administrative mechanisms suited to today’s conditions.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

---

Our Country, Then and Now

by Richard C. Cook

ISBN: 9781949762853

E-book ISBN: 978-1-949762-86-0

Year: 2023

Our Country Then and Now takes us on a 400-year journey through America’s history, providing unique snapshots from African enslavement, native dispossession, financial scandals, and wars of expansion and aggression, interspersed with tales from author Richard C. Cook’s ancestry—from Puritan forebears to fighters in the American Revolutionary War and the Civil War, to Midwest Pioneer farmers and their relations with native nations.

Click here to order.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Much has been made of the September 9, 2023 simultaneous reports in The New York Times and Vanity Fair of the claims of a former Secret Service agent, Paul Landis, who was part of the security detail in Dallas, Texas when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963.  Like so many reports by such media that have covered up the truth of the assassination for sixty years, this one about “the magic bullet” is also a red herring.

It encourages pseudo-debates and confusion and is a rather dumb “limited hangout,” which is a strategy used by intelligence agencies to dangle some truth in order to divert attention from core facts of a case they are desperate to conceal. With these particular articles, they are willing to suggest that maybe the Warren Commission’s magic bullet claim is possibly incorrect. This is because so many people have long come to realize that that part of the propaganda story is absurd, so the coverup artists are willing to suggest it might be wrong in order to continue debating meaningless matters based on false premises in order to solidify their core lies.

Despite responses to these two stories about Landis that credit them for “finally” showing that the “magic bullet” claim of the Warren Commission is now dead, it would be more accurate to say they have revived debate about it in order to sneakily hide the fundamental fact about the assassination: that the CIA assassinated JFK.

We can expect many more such red herrings in the next two months leading up to the sixtieth anniversary of the assassination.

They are what one of the earliest critics of The Warren Commission, Vincent Salandria, a brilliant Philadelphia lawyer, called “a false mystery.” He said:

After more than a half century, the historical truth of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy has been finally established beyond rational dispute. The Kennedy assassination is a false mystery. It was conceived by the conspirators to be a false mystery which was designed to cause interminable debate. The purpose of the protracted debate was to obscure what was quite clearly and plainly a coup d’état. Simply stated, President Kennedy was assassinated by our U.S. national security state in order to abort his efforts to bring the Cold War to a peaceful conclusion.

That the corporate mainstream should trumpet these reports as important is to be expected, but that they are also so greeted by some people who should know better is sad.  For there is no mystery about the assassination of President Kennedy; he was assassinated by the CIA and the evidence for this fact has long been available. And the Warren Commission’s claim that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the so-called “magic bullet” – Commission Exhibit 399 – that entered JFK’s back and exited his neck and then went into the back of Gov. John Connally, who was sitting in the front seat, zigzagging in multiple directions, causing him five wounds and then emerging in pristine condition, has always been risible.  Only fools or those ignorant of the details have ever believed it, but desperate conspirators led by the late Arlen Specter, the future Senator, did desperate things for The Warren Commission in order to pin the rap on the patsy Oswald and cover-up for the killers.

I could spend many words explaining the details of the government conspiracy to assassinate JFK, why they did it, and have been covering it up ever since.  But I have done this elsewhere. If you wish to learn the truth from credible sources, I would highly recommend that you watch the long version of Oliver Stone’s documentary JFK Revisited; Through the Looking Glass and then closely read the transcripts and interviews in James DiEugenio’s crucial compendium of transcripts and interviews for the film.  You will immediately realize that these recent revelations are a continuation of the coverup.

This should be immediately intuited by the titles of the two pieces. The New York Times’ article, written by its chief White House correspondent Peter Baker, who previously worked for the Washington Post for twenty years, including four years as its Moscow bureau chief, is entitled JFK Assassination Witness Breaks His Silence and Raises New Questions. (The Times and Washington Post have long been the CIA’s mouthpieces.) The Vanity Fair article is written by James Robenalt, a colleague of John Dean of Watergate infamy, and is entitled A New JFK  Assassination Revelation Could Upend the Long-Held “Lone Gunman” Theory.

For anyone with a soupçon of linguistic analytical skill and a rudimentary knowledge of the JFK assassination, those titles immediately induce skepticism. “New questions”? Don’t we already have the answers we need. “Could Upend the Long-Held ‘Lone Gunman’ Theory”? So we must keep debating and researching the obvious. Why? To protect the CIA.

Both articles go on to expound on how the sympathetically described poor conscience-stricken old guy Landis’s claim that he found the so-called pristine magic bullet on the top back of the car seat where JFK was sitting and placed it on Kennedy’s stretcher in Parkland Hospital without telling anyone for all these decades is an earth shattering revelation. And as they do so, they make sure to slip in a series of falsehoods to reinforce the essence of the government’s case.

If anyone is interested in the facts concerning the physical evidence, all one need do is read Vincent Salandria’s analysis here. Once you have, you will realize the hullabaloo about Landis is a pseudo-debate.

These articles about Landis reinforce what Dr. Martin Schotz describes in his book History Will Not Absolve Us, and what he said in a talk twenty-five years ago. He made a distinction between the waters of knowledge and the waters of uncertainty. In the case of the JFK assassination, the public is allowed to think anything they want, but they are not allowed to know the truth, although since the Warren Commission was released it was evident that “no honest person could ever accept the single bullet theory.” And he then added this about pseudo- debates :

The lie that was destined to cover the truth of the assassination was the lie that the assassination is a mystery, that we are not sure what happened, but being free citizens of a great democracy we can discuss and debate what has occurred. We can petition our government and join with it in seeking the solution to this mystery. This is the essence of the cover-up.

The lie is that there is a mystery to debate. And so we have pseudo-debates. Debates about meaningless disputes, based on assumptions which are obviously false. This is the form that Orwell’s crimestop has taken in the matter of the President’s murder. I am talking about the pseudo-debate over whether the Warren Report is true when it is obviously and undebatably false. . . . Perhaps many people think that engaging in pseudo-debate is a benign activity. That it simply means that people are debating something that is irrelevant. This is not the case. I say this because every debate rests on a premise to which the debaters must agree, or there is no debate. In the case of pseudo-debate the premise is a lie. So in the pseudo-debate we have the parties to the debate agreeing to purvey a lie to the public. And it is all the more malignant because it is subtle. The unsuspecting person who is witness to the pseudo-debate does not understand that he is being passed a lie. He is not even aware that he is being passed a premise. It is so subtle that the premise just passes into the person as if it were reality. This premise—that there is uncertainty to be resolved—seems so benign. It is as easy as drinking a glass of treated water.

But the fact remains that there is no mystery except in the minds of those who are willing to drink this premise. The premise is a lie, and a society which agrees to drink such a lie ceases to perceive reality. This is what we mean by mass denial.

That the entire establishment has been willing to join in this process of cover-up by confusion creates an extreme form of problem for anyone who would seek to utter the truth. For these civilian institutions—the media, the universities and the government—once they begin engaging in denial of knowledge of the identity of the assassins, once they are drawn into the cover-up, a secondary motivation develops for them. Now they are not only protecting the state, they are now protecting themselves, because to expose the obviousness of the assassination and the false debate would be to reveal the corrupt role of all these institutions. And there is no question that these institutions are masters in self-protection. Thus anyone who would attempt to confront the true cover-up must be prepared to confront virtually the entire society. And in doing this, one is inevitably going to be marginalized.

And to mention just one false premise of the Landis saga (beside the one that there is uncertainty to be resolved; and there are many others, but one will suffice, since I don’t want to enter into a pseudo-debate), it is that the so-called magic bullet in evidence – CE 399 – the one discussed in these articles, is not even the one said to be found somewhere in Parkland Hospital, and the chain of custody for that bullet – or some bullet – is broken in many places (see James DiEugenio, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass ).

Phantom bullets and plenty of magic go into the creation and destruction of this tall tale told to camouflage the CIA’s guilt in its killing of President Kennedy. If you believe in magic and mystery, The New York Times’ Peter Baker has these words for you, if you can understand them:

Mr. Landis’s account, included in a forthcoming memoir, would rewrite the narrative of one of modern American history’s most earth-shattering days in an important way. It may not mean any more than that. But it could also encourage those who have long suspected that there was more than one gunman in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, adding new grist to one of the nation’s enduring mysteries.

Yes, those four English lads said it in 1967: “The magical mystery tour is hoping to take you away” into an enduring mystery, even though the case was solved long ago.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

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

Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from the author

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely ‘ Global Research articles.

***

Sep. 6, 2023 – Coomera, QLD, Australia – 38 year old Heidi Strbak lived an active life of bushwalking, horse riding and served 4.5 years in the army. She has a 7 year old son. On Dec. 31, 2021 at 14 weeks of her 2nd pregnancy she took one Pfizer dose. It destroyed her life and killed her baby. Here is her story:

My Take…

On Sep. 12, 2023, the Canadian government announced that new Moderna COVID-19 mRNA boosters (XBB.1.5) were approved, and recommended that all pregnant women get the shots, at all stages of pregnancy, despite NO STUDIES done to ensure safety in pregnancy.

This is medical malpractice, medical malfeasance, this is criminal.

I have written 12 substack articles on the dangers of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in pregnancy, both to the fetus and to mom.

The dangers of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in pregnancy can be summarized as follows: 

• 1st trimester (0-12 weeks) – congenital malformations of heart, brain, limbs, fetus stops growing, miscarriage
• 2nd trimester (13-26 weeks) – fetus stops growing, cardiac arrest, pulmonary hemorrhage, miscarriage, stillbirth
• 3rd trimester (27-40 weeks) – fetus stops growing, cardiac arrest, pulmonary hemorrhage, STILLBIRTH, preterm labor
• at all stages of pregnancy (mom) – high risk of mom having cardiac arrest, blood clots, blood pressure issues, aneurysms, brain bleeds, strokes, turbo cancer, dying in their sleep, sudden death
• during delivery – increased risk of death during delivery, mostly from bleeding and clotting issues
• postpartum period (baby)
  • baby can develop myocarditis
  • baby can develop rare cancers
  • baby can suffer sudden infant death
• postpartum period (mom)
  • mother can suffer blood clots (most common), infection and sepsis, depression, psychosis, stroke, turbo cancer, sudden cardiac arrest, sudden death
• breastfeeding – breast milk contains LNPs/mRNA/spike protein
  • baby can suffer seizures, swollen lymph nodes, rashes, blood in urine and stool and can suffer sudden death
  • discoloration of breast milk with unknown consequences
  • decrease and cessation of milk production
  • mother can suffer bleeding, miscarriage of new pregnancy

CONCLUSION: None of the COVID-19 vaccines were ever tested for safety in pregnancy.

AstraZeneca and J&J are now off the market for clotting issues. It is unknown how many pregnant women and babies were harmed by them.

Pfizer & Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines continue to injure and kill pregnant women and their babies by the thousands.

Newly approved (Sep.12, 2023) Pfizer & Moderna COVID-19 mRNA boosters XBB.1.5 are just as dangerous as previous versions of these vaccines – manufacturing process and poor quality control are the same, same LNPs, same contaminants (DNA plasmids, metallic fragments). 

These products must be taken off the market immediately and everyone involved in authorizing, recommending and administering these products to pregnant women must be criminally prosecuted.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

Bill Gates Is Funding a Scheme to Cut Down 70 Million Acres of Forests in North America

Rhoda Wilson, September 8, 2023

The Elite’s 5,000-Year War on Your Mind Is Climaxing. Can We Defeat It?

Robert J. Burrowes, September 13, 2023

Children’s Hearts Destroyed by COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines. Their Heart Transplants Are Not Going Well, with Complications

Dr. William Makis, September 12, 2023

9/11 and “The Unspeakable”: Award Winning Actor William Hurt: “It took me a long time to face what I knew to be true about 9/11”

William Hurt, September 7, 2023

Malice Aforethought on the COVID-19 Pandemic: “This is a global coup d’etat and intentional mass murder.” Dr. Mike Yeadon

Dr. Mike Yeadon, September 11, 2023

Morocco – Earthquake Preceded by Mysterious Blue Lights

Peter Koenig, September 14, 2023

J.F.K. Assassination Witness Breaks His Silence. Evidence of a Second Shooter. “The Magic Bullet” Theory Is an Outright Lie

Peter Baker, September 11, 2023

Mystery ‘Blue Lights’ Flash in Sky Moments Before Horror Morocco Earthquake that Killed More Than 2,000

Juliana Cruz Lima, September 12, 2023

9/11 Analysis: “Who Is Osama Bin Laden?”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 11, 2023

Video: Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the COVID Vaccine. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence Is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 14, 2023

The Military Situation in the Ukraine. Jacques Baud

Jacques Baud, September 10, 2023

Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Vaccines Attack Bone Marrow Stem Cells and Drastically Alter Gene Expression

Dr. William Makis, September 11, 2023

9/11 – The Onslaught of an Endless War on Humanity

Peter Koenig, September 12, 2023

Video: Dr. Naomi Wolf Uncovers Pfizer’s Depopulation Agenda, as Evidenced by Its Own Documents

The Vigilant Fox, September 9, 2023

JFK Assassination Witness Breaks 60-Year Silence and Blows Up Key Government Claim Regarding the President’s Death – Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Responds

Cullen Linebarger, September 11, 2023

Video: Lahaina Truths and Newly Emerged Satellite Images Tell a Dark Story. Matt Roeske

Reinette Senum, September 1, 2023

9/11 After 22 years

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, September 11, 2023

Chance Encounters as the Walls Close In…

Edward Curtin, September 12, 2023

The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account of 911 Cannot be True

David Ray Griffin, September 11, 2023

Video: New Zealand’s “River of Freedom”: Protest Movement Against Illegal COVID Vaccine Mandates, Political Thuggery, Divisive and Illegal Acts. “Demolition of Fundamental Human Rights”

Dr. Emanuel Garcia, September 12, 2023

A Personal Journey Through the National Security State. Dr. Philip M. Giraldi

By Philip Giraldi, September 14, 2023

I spent 18 years in CIA nearly all overseas where I worked almost exclusively on counter-terrorism against groups that were initially nearly all European, starting with the Italian Red Brigades in 1976 and ending up with the Basque and Catalan separatists in Spain in 1992.

ICC’s Jurisdiction Crumbling Barely Six Months After Putin Indictment

By Drago Bosnic, September 15, 2023

Less than six months ago, the so-called “International Criminal Court” (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights. The glorified NGO posing as an “international justice institution” accused Putin and Lvova-Belova of supposed “war crimes” in Ukraine, alleging that they kidnapped Ukrainian children and forcefully relocated them to Russia.

mRNA Vaccines Now Headed for Shrimp. “Can Shrimp be Vaccinated?” Genetic Manipulation

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 14, 2023

Shrimp are slated to become the latest food source exposed to messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines, courtesy of ViAqua Therapeutics, an Israeli-based biotechnology startup. The company has secured $8.25 million in funding from venture capitalists for its oral RNA-based shrimp vaccine, which is intended to target white spot syndrome virus (WSSV).

Libya Climate Crisis Linked to Pentagon-NATO Intervention of 2011

By Abayomi Azikiwe, September 14, 2023

Two devastating events have struck the North African states of the Kingdom of Morocco and Libya leaving thousands dead and tens of thousands more unaccounted for by international humanitarian agencies.

Video: Your Guide to 5th-Generation Warfare. James Corbett

By James Corbett and The Corbett Report, September 14, 2023

We are in the middle of a world-changing war. This is no ordinary war, however. Most of the victims of this warfare aren’t even able to identify it as war, nor do they understand that they are combatants in it. It’s called fifth-generation warfare, and I’m here to tell you all about it.

From Where Will the Breakthrough Come for Julian Assange?

By Barbara Nimri Aziz, September 14, 2023

Delegates from Australia’s parliament are headed to Washington to appeal to the U.S. Congress on behalf of the Wikileaks founder. While anyone who recognizes the injustice of Washington’s insistence on extradition of the jailed journalist and publisher, this effort by representatives of several parties may be too late. In any event, it is very late.

Armenia’s Prime Minister Pashinyan’s “Failed Policy to Remove Russia has No NATO Guarantee”

By Abraham Gaspayan and Steven Sahiounie, September 14, 2023

Armenia continues to be under attack by Azerbaijan over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region which has simmered between Armenia and Azerbaijan for 30 years. Russian peacekeeping troops try to maintain calm, but recent comments concerning Armenia and NATO have put nerves on edge.

Kim Jong-un’s Visit to Russia — Strengthened Russia-North Korea Cooperation?

By Karsten Riise, September 14, 2023

Kim Jong-un’s visit to Russia is far-far beyond any ordinary stateman visit. The two leaders Putin and Kim spend a day together, including several hours both with delegations which has a military component, and just the two of them. Kim visits Russia’s Eastern Cosmodrome, indicating a coming Russia collaboration with North Korea in ballistic rocket technology and “satellites”.

Is “Exercise Sea Breeze” a Prelude to False Flag in Ukraine?

By Renee Parsons, September 14, 2023

On the verge of a catastrophic US defeat as predicted by Col. Douglas MacGregor, it might have only been a matter of time before Ukraine would attempt to ratchet up the conflict and launch a major attack against Russia’s state-of-the-art naval base in the Crimea located at Sevastopol on the Black Sea. 

Why They Hate Us — US Interventionism Following the 9/11 Attack

By Jacob G. Hornberger, September 14, 2023

The reason that foreigners bore such deep anger and rage toward the United States was because of the U.S. government’s deadly and destructive interventionist antics in the Middle East after the ostensible end of the Cold War.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely ‘ Global Research articles.

***

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

 

The head of the medical service of the Far-Right unit Da Vinci’s Wolves of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Alina Mykhailova, spoke about the difficult situation and, even more surprisingly, admitted to huge losses on the front.

“We are suffering great losses. There is no romance in this. What is happening at the front now is something you will not read in the news,” she said in an interview with Ukrainian media on September 12.

Mykhailova added that for the first time in her life, she was ready to give up absolutely everything and talk to anyone so that her battalion would survive. She also admitted that there is no prospect of a Ukrainian victory in the near future.

“The population is very calm with statements that today or tomorrow there will be victory. It will not happen today, nor tomorrow, nor, unfortunately, in a year,” Mykhailova, who is also a deputy in the Kiev City Council, concluded.

Since the beginning of June, the Ukrainian military has been conducting a counteroffensive in Donetsk, Artyomovsk and Zaporozhye with NATO-trained brigades and Western military equipment. However, they have achieved no success.

Although Mykhailova did not give a casualty figure, Russian President Vladimir Putin recently revealed that the counteroffensive has stalled and led to over 75,500 Ukrainian casualties – shocking for only four months of active combat. Many American and European journalists and military experts also argue that Kiev’s counteroffensive failed and noted the effectiveness of Russian defences.

US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley pointed out on September 10 that Ukraine may only have about 30-45 days of fighting left. However, despite this small timeframe left in the regular fighting season and the huge losses suffered by Kiev, the US and NATO are not fazed and continue to send more military shipments and money into the financial blackhole that Ukraine has become.

The Ukrainian military will be unable to advance any further from their already paltry gains once the season changes. Ukraine and the West have exhausted their ammunition stockpile, and they cannot get supplies quickly enough. Effectively, the Ukrainians cannot do much at this point, even if they want to.

Despite the Ukrainians not being able to do much at this point, as affirmed by Mykhailova, it did not prevent Milley from falsely claiming,

“There’s still a reasonable amount of time, probably about 30 to 45 days’ worth of fighting weather left, so the Ukrainians aren’t done. There’s battles not done… they haven’t finished the fighting part of what they’re trying to accomplish.”

The West wants to see the offensive continue even though it has very evidently failed. For this reason, the US continues to increase aid even further, and the indications are that the West will continue this or at least try to sustain it.

US President Joe Biden has provided Kiev with $43.7 billion in military aid since Russia launched its special military operation in Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. Recently, the US announced a new security package worth $600 million for Ukraine, which will include ammunition and anti-aircraft equipment.

By providing such equipment, Washington hopes to coerce Kiev to continue the offensive for another 30 days, perhaps even through the winter. For this reason, there has been a huge uptick in rhetoric about Ukraine supposedly breaking Russia’s first line of defence and making slow but steady gains. None of this corresponds with reality.

In the US, most people do not support the current policy of sending more money down the drain in Ukraine. Considering the 2024 presidential election, the Biden administration is under domestic pressure from a chorus of voices calling for a focus on domestic issues. This could be part of the West’s attempt to transfer responsibility for the failure of the counteroffensive to Ukraine itself.

The US has brazenly admitted it worked with the Ukrainians to plan the offensive for months, arming and training the military. Now, the West is criticising Ukraine for its failures.

As US elections are looming and Ukraine cannot win the war, the Biden administration needs to shift the blame and is pinning it directly on the Eastern European country. This demonstrates the confused nature of US policy as, on one hand, it is encouraging Ukraine to continue fighting by sending more weapons and money, but at the same time, narratives are being concocted to explain to US voters why billions of dollars have been wasted on a lost cause. Meanwhile, as Mykhailova highlighted, “there is no romance,” nor any victory for Ukraine through this war.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Featured image is from InfoBrics 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu below the author’s name as well as on the top banner (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

Minor Editing, February 28, 2023

Click here to read this article in Turkish. (bu makaleyi türkçe oku)

.

Destruction, social devastation and the loss of life. Our thoughts are with the people of Turkey and Syria.

***

Since the February 2023 earthquakes in Turkey and Syria, several regions of the World have experienced “extreme weather conditions” and “climate events” including earthquakes, floods, and wildfires. Were these events the result of environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) and geo-engineering (e.g. Morocco, Libya, Hawaii…)? 

Was the February 6, 2023 earthquake in Southern Anatolia the result of environmental modification techniques  (ENMOD)? 

While no direct evidence or proof can be firmly established, there has not been a single “major earthquake” in Southern Anatolia in the course of more than 700 years.

Does that not “tell us something” regarding the “probability” or “likelihood” of a “major earthquake” occurring in Southern Turkey? 

Michel Chossudovsky, September 14, 2023

***

Update: The Political and Social Implications of the February 2023 Earthquakes

The economic, social and geopolitical impacts of the February 2023 two earthquakes in Southern Anatolia are far-reaching. 

Within Turkey, the earthquakes have not only resulted in economic, social and political chaos to the detriment of the Erdogan government, they have also been followed by attempts on the part of US-NATO to undermine Erdogan’s reelection (May 14, 2023), largely in view of Ankara’s unspoken strategic alliance with Moscow, not to mention its rapprochement with Teheran. 

Turkey is both a “NATO Heavyweight” as well as “An Ally of Russia”. Sounds Contradictory 

Turkey abandoned NATO’s Air Defence System in favor of Russia’s “State of the Art” S-400. That acquisition of Russian military technology was part of a concurrent military cooperation agreement as well an alliance between Turkey and Russia established in the immediate aftermath of the failed July 2016 US sponsored coup d’Etat, not to mention the unsuccessful assassination plot directed against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. 

Washington is fully aware that you cannot win a war against Russia when the second largest military power member state of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization namely Turkey is “sleeping with the enemy”. 

Moreover, while Russia controls a large part of the Northern and Eastern coastlines of the Black Sea, the entire Southern coastline as well as access from the Mediterranean under the Montreux Protocol is under Turkey’s jurisdiction.

Finland and Sweden’s Accession to NATO

Also of significance, Turkey was involved in the months prior to the earthquake in blocking (on behalf of Moscow?) both Sweden and Finland from joining NATO. 

In the immediate wake of earthquakes, pressured by Washington to comply, Ankara approved in late March Finland’s application to join NATO:

The Turkish Parliament voted unanimously in favor of Finland’s membership on [March 30], clearing the last hurdle in the accession process. (CNN, March 31, 2023)

May 14, 2023 Turkey Elections

In regards to Turkey’s May 14 presidential and parliamentary elections, Washington’s objective is to: “Replace Erdogan” with an obedient US proxy. 

No easy task: Their chosen successor to Erdogan is leader of the opposition Kemel Kılıçdaroğlu, who heads a six-party coalition “united by the sole aim of removing Erdoğan from power”. 

Erdogan’s Justice and Development party (AKP) is nonetheless poised (according to Western media reports) to suffer losses in the parliamentary elections, which may also be accompanied by a “Color Revolution” resulting in a process of engineered social chaos and mass protests against Erdogan. 

Washington’s ultimate objective is to dismantle the Russia-Turkey alliance, while reintegrating Turkey back into the Atlantic Alliance as an “obedient NATO country”, no more “sleeping with the enemy”.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, April 23, 2023

 

Introduction 

.

The latest reports point to a death toll in Turkey and Syria well in excess of 50,000, more than half a million injured, tens of thousands of people missing. The social devastation and destruction is beyond description. The first and second earthquakes on February 6, 2023 in Kahramanmaras province in Southern Turkey were respectively of the magnitude of 7.6 and 7.8 (Richter scale).

A third earthquake of a magnitude of 6.3 was recorded on February 20th. 

In Turkey, some 530,000 people have been evacuated from the disaster area. Ankara confirms that “173,000 buildings have so far been recorded as collapsed or severely damaged, with more than 1.9 million people taking refuge in temporary shelters or hotels and public facilities.“

In the words of President Recep Tayyip  Erdogan: ““We are living through the most painful days in our history”. 

In Syria, the earthquakes have largely affected the cities of Aleppo, Lattakia and Hama which are within proximity of Syria’s Northwestern border with Turkey. The latest announced death toll in Syria was 5,914, with 8.8 million people affected. 

President Bachar Al Assad underscored that US-NATO has been at war with Syria for almost 12 years, while emphasizing that “Syria has not been an earthquake area for about two and a half centuries”.

In this article, Part I will focus on the History of Earthquake Activity in Turkey, while underscoring the fact that prior to the February 6, 2023 earthquake, there was no recent evidence or historical record of “major earthquake” activity in Southern Anatolia. 

Part II will provide a Review of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD).

Part III will focus on The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, ratified in 1977 by the UN General Assembly.

What is significant in regards to the Turkey-Syria earthquake disaster is that the 1977 UN Convention (cited above) contains provisions for the conduct of an investigation in regards to “destruction, damage or injury” incurred by the “State Parties”, under the auspices of a UN “Consultative Committee of Experts”.

There are also provisions in the Convention for referral to the United Nations Security Council on behalf of the “State Parties”. These issues are  outlined in Part IV. 

 

I

History of Earthquake Activity in Turkey

 

In regards to Turkey, geological analysis suggests the following:

“earthquake activities mainly occur “on the Anatolian plate, a small wedge-shaped tectonic plate that is being squeezed westwards as the Arabian plate to the east slams into the Eurasian plate“. (emphasis added).

What characterizes Turkey’s earthquake activity is: 

“a sequence along the North Anatolian Fault that started in 1939, causing large earthquakes that moved progressively from east to west over a period of 60 years” 

 

The February 6, 2023 earthquakes with epicentres in Pazarcik (7.8) and Ekinozu (7.5) respectively in proximity of Gaziantep and Kahramanmaraş are the largest “major earthquakes” in recent history. (See Table in Annex, Graph below).

On February 6, around 4:15 a.m. local time, a magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck south-central Turkey near the Turkey/Syria border. Just 11 minutes later, a magnitude 6.7 aftershock shook the region. Nine hours later a magnitude 7.5 quake followed. (USGS – National Earthquake Information Center)

The Map Below identifies the epicentres of the February 6, 2023 earthquakes, located in the South, within proximity of Syria’s Northwestern border.

Epicentre of Ekinozu, Pazarcik earthquakes, February 6, 2023

Recent “Major Earthquakes”

Historically, the largest earthquakes in Turkey have epicentres in North Western Anatolia, in proximity of Istanbul, Western Anatolia as well as in the Northeastern region.

The North Anatolian Fault

Seven large (MS) 7.0 earthquakes in the period from 1939 through 1999 along the North Anatolian Fault. See map above

These earthquakes have ruptured the fault progressively from east to west. Following are data for the seven large earthquakes that have progressively ruptured the North Anatolian fault:

• 1939 December 26. Magnitude (MS) 7.9 – 8.0. 30,000 deaths. Fault length about 360 km. Initiated the eastward migration of significant earthquakes on the North Anatolian fault. (Termed the 1939 Erzincan earthquake, North Anatolia)
• 1942 December 20. Magnitude (MS) 7.1. Fault length about 50 km. (Termed the 1942 Erbaa earthquake, North Anatolia)
• 1943 November 26. Magnitude (MS) 7.6. Fault length about 280 km. (Termed the 1943 Tosya earthquake, Northern Anatolia)
• 1944 February 01. Magnitude (MS) 7.3. Fault length about 165 km. (Termed the 1944 Bolu-Gerede earthquake, Northern Anatolia)
• 1957 May 26. Magnitude (MS) about 7. Fault length about 30 km. (Termed the 1957 Abant earthquake, Northern Anatolia)
• 1967 July 22. Magnitude (MS) 7.1. Fault length about 80 km. (Termed the 1967 Mudurnu Valley earthquake, Northern Anatolia)
• 1999 August 17. Ismit. Magnitude (MS) 7.8; MW 7.4-7.5) North Western Anatolia

Below are the reports of the 5 largest earthquakes since 1950 all of which are along the North Anatolian Fault

Bingol: a magnitude 6.9 and occurred in the eastern city of Turkey on May 22, 1971.

City of Izmit: August 17, 1999, 90 km southeast of Istanbul, 7.6 magnitude. The earthquake occurred in the industrialized and most densely populated urban areas of Istanbul, Sakarya, Golcuk, Darica, and Derince.

Düzce Quake, 12 November 1999, A major earthquake occurred 70 kilometers (45 miles) east of Adapazari or 170 km (105 mi) northwest of Ankara, A magnitude of 7.2.

The city of Van. 23 October 2011. A magnitude 7.1 earthquake, northeastern city close to border with Iran.

Izmir: of  30 October 2020, a magnitude 7.0 with an epicentre about 14 km northeast of the Greek island of Samos

epicentre of Izmit-Golcuk earthquake in Northwestern Anatolia 

Nota Bene: None of these major earthquakes (1939-1999) are in Southern Anatolia.

Long-Term History of Earthquakes in Turkey (342 AD -1999)

The history of “major earthquakes” is on record since 342 AD based on data compiled by the USGS – National Earthquake Information Center (See Table in Annex).

In the 13th Century, a “major earthquake” (60,000 deaths) was recorded in Adana in 1268 (Southern Anatolia). Moreover, since the 15th Century, all “major earthquakes” have occurred in Northwestern, Western and Northeastern Anatolia. (See Annex)

Southern Turkey Earthquakes

Reuters has categorized the initial major earthquake (February 6, 2023)  “as the most powerful in the region in at least a century”. That is an understatement. In regards to Southern Anatolia, it is the largest earthquake in more than seven centuries. (Adana in 1268, see Table in Annex)

On record in Southern Turkey, is the Ceyhan-Adana earthquake on 27 June 1998, with magnitude of 6.3, affecting the cities of Ceyhan and Adana, 146 deaths. The Ceyan earthquake, however, is not categorized as “a major earthquake” (in excess of 7.0)

As outlined above, the major earthquakes in Turkey are along the North Anatolia Fault.

Prior to February 6, 2023

Not a single “major earthquake” in Southern Anatolia in the course of more than 700 years: Does that not “tell us something” regarding the “probability” or “likelihood” of a “major earthquake” occurring in Southern Turkey?

Earthquake “Forecasting”

Earthquake forecasting is routine. An earthquake can be forecasted up to months ahead. “Forecasting” however must not be confused with “seismological prediction”:

Dutch seismologist Frank Hoogerbeets, who works for the Solar System Geometry Survey (SSGS) in the Netherlands, predicted the earthquake in Turkey on February 3, 2023, three days before its occurrence. 

No Firm Evidence of a Terrorist Attack 

While there may be doubts at a political level, there is at this stage no firm evidence that this was a terrorist attack. Based on information in the public domaine (as opposed to classified information), there is no tangible evidence that “environmental modifications techniques” were used against Turkey and Syria.

Of significance, however, there was an unofficial statement (yet to be confirmed) by Serdar Hussein, the Head of the Turkish Space Agency in an interview on Russian TV. He referred to hard titanium alloy rods sending powerful beams of energy to earth, deep into the ground.

Below is the translation of his interview.

Transcript (Translation)

The head of the Turkish Space Agency, Serdar Hussein Yildirim, on weapons capable of causing earthquakes:

You know those power poles on the streets. They are similar to these pillars, about 8-10 meters high. Metal rods.

There is nothing inside the rod, no explosives, nothing, but it’s a metal rod made of a hard titanium alloy material.

They put them in a satellite.  And then they aim and launch them to Earth. It’s like a stick with a sharp point. For example, God forbid, it falls somewhere, we will not name the disaster scenario now, but as soon as it falls to the ground, it penetrates up to 5 km deep into the earth.  

This happens very quickly and creates an earthquake of magnitude 7-8.

As a result of the impact, everything that is there will be destroyed. Look, there are no weapons here, no explosives, no bombs, nothing like that. Simple sticks [rods]. But there is such a force that comes from outer space, and you have no chance to see it, stop it, or defend yourself.”  (emphasis added)

See video here

 

II

Environmental Modification Techniques

 

There is a vast literature on weather modification techniques for military use much of which is classified. The US and Russia are on record. They possess advanced ENMOD technologies.

The US Military can control the weather. This is confirmed by a US Air Force document entitled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025“ 

The late World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirmed that “US military scientists … are working on weather systems as a potential weapon.  Already in the 1970s, former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had foreseen in his book “Between Two Ages” that:

“Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised…”

Scientist Dr. Nicholas Begich who was actively involved in the public campaign against HAARP– described HAARP as:

“A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere [upper layer of the atmosphere] by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything — living and dead.”

Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlines several types of “unconventional weapons” using radio frequencies. He refers to “weather war,” indicating that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had already

“mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s.”

My article entitled Weather Warfare first published by The Ecologist on May 22 2008 provides a summary of several in-depth and detailed articles I wrote at an earlier period on environmental modification (ENMOD) techniques for military use:

 

The CBC Documentary on HAARP

“Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather”

 

III

The 1977 U.N. Convention

on the Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

.

 

The historic 1977 Convention ratified by the UN General Assembly banning “military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.”

 

….Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military … use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party. (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Geneva, May 18, 1977. Entered into force: 5 October 1978, see full text of Convention in Annex)

To Read the full text of the UN Convention, click here

The List of countries which have ratified or signed the Treaty 

As of 2022, 78 countries have ratified or acceded to the treaty including Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, the U.S. and the Russian Federation. Israel has not ratified the Treaty.

Official UN document 

European Parliament Committee’s Motion for Resolution

It is also worth noting that in February 1998, the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the HAARP program. The Committee’s “Motion for Resolution” submitted to the European Parliament:

“Considers HAARP… by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body…; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration… to give evidence to the public hearing …into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program.” (emphasis added)

 

 

IV

“An Expert Investigation” into “Hostile Use of ENMOD” 

.

In view of the gravity of the Turkey-Syria earthquake, the loss of life, the devastating social and economic impacts, an “expert investigation” should be conducted predicated on the 1977 International Convention banning “military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques”.

I should mention that since the ratification of the 1977 UN Convention cited above, ENMOD techniques for military use have become increasingly sophisticated.

Can we trust the United Nations? The two “State Parties”, namely Turkey and Syria should collaborate and conduct their own internal investigation prior to the conduct of an expert investigation under UN auspices.

The Terms of Reference of this Investigation are contained in the Articles of Agreement of the UN Treaty.

I will be referring to Article I, II and V (excerpts) which identify the nature of the Expert Investigation. (emphasis added). Click here, to consult the complete list of Articles

Article I. 1.

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.

Article II refers to ENMOD techniques including earthquakes:

Article II

As used in article 1, the term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.

Article V

1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to consult one another and to co-operate in solving any problems which may arise in relation to the objectives of, or in the application of the provisions of, the Convention. Consultation and co-operation pursuant to this article may also be undertaken through appropriate international procedures within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. These international procedures may include the services of appropriate international organizations, as well as of a Consultative Committee of Experts as provided for in paragraph 2 of this article.

2. For the purposes set forth in paragraph 1 of this article, the Depositary shall within one month of the receipt of a request from any State Party to this Convention, convene a Consultative Committee of Experts. …

3. Any State Party to this Convention which has reason to believe that any other State Party is acting in breach of obligations deriving from the provisions of the Convention may lodge a complaint with the Security Council of the United Nations. Such a complaint should include all relevant information as well as all possible evidence supporting ItS validity.

4. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to cooperate in carrying out any investigation which the Security Council may initiate, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, on the basis of the complaint received by the Council. The Security Council shall inform the States Parties of the results of the investigation.

In Annex to the Text of the Convention is the Following:

1. The Consultative Committee of Experts shall undertake to make appropriate findings of fact and provide expert views relevant to any problem raised pursuant to paragraph 1 of article V of this Convention by the State Party requesting the convening of the Committee.

emphasis added

Concluding Remarks 

We are in solidarity with the people of Turkey and Syria.

At this stage, it would be unwise and premature to draw simplistic conclusions.

There is a forbidden truth. I have attempted to provide a framework of analysis and understanding.

The damage and loss of life is beyond description: The issue should be the object of analysis, dialogue and debate, with reference to the 1977 International Convention banning “military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques”.

Turkey and Syria as “State Parties” must, as a first step, conduct their own internal investigation before referring it to the UN Consultative Committee of Experts and/or to the United Nations Security Council.

 

 

---

Annex  

Source: This Information was provided by USGS – National Earthquake Information Center

The following are the sources and footnotes 

ISK: Earthquake catalog of Kandilli Observatory, Bogazici University, Istanbul, supplied by NOAA/NGDC (Meyers and Von Hake), Boulder CO, 1985.

ITU: K. Ergin, U. Guclu and Z. Uz, A Catalog of Earthquakes for Turkey and Surrounding Area (11 AD to 1964 AD), Technical University of Istanbul, Faculty of Mining Engineering, 1967.

AFAD: Earthquake Risk Map by AFAD, Department of Disasters and Emergency Management, 2018.

NG(n): R. Ganse and J. Nelson, Catalog of Significant Earthquakes 2000 BC – 1979 Including Quantitative Casualties and Damage, NOAA/NGDC Report SE-27, Boulder CO, 1981. The number in parentheses is from their references table, as listed below:

2: Lomnitz, Global Tectonics and Earthquake Risk, 1974.

3: Bath, Introduction to Seismology, 1978.

5b: (there is no source 5b — probably should be 55?).

7: Meyers and von Hake, Earthquake data file summary, 1976.

51: Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft, World Map of Natural Hazards, 1978.

55: Milne, Catalogue of Destructive Earthquakes, 1911.

73: U.S. Congress, Great Earthquakes, 1888.

99: Karnik, Seismicity of the European Area, 1971.

120: Alsinawi and Galih, Historical Seismicity of Iraq, 1978.

138: Ambraseys, Middle East A Reappraisal of Seismicity, 1978.